TRAMBAKLAL HARINARAYAN JANI Vs. SHANKARBHAI BHAIJIBHAI VAGRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Civil Application raises an interesting question as to the interpretation of Section 84B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of Survey No. 181/1 -2 situate at Sardarpura in the Taluka of Anand. Prior to 1949, respondent No. 1 was the owner of this survey number. It appears that in 1949 the petitioner lent and advanced a sum of Rs. 2,000 to respondent No. 1 and thereupon respondent No. 1 executed in favour of the petitioner a deed of conditional sale. Respondent No. 1 continued to be in possession of the survey number inspite of that conditional sale though as a tenant of the petitioner. The case of respondent No. 1 was that during the monsoon of the year 1955 -56 the petitioner threatened him not to go to the land in question telling him that if he entered the land he would see that he was sent to jail. It was also the case of respondent No. 1 that the petitioner obtained possession of the land in question from him by means of these threats. As against this case of respondent No. 1, the petitioner's case was that he was personally cultivating these lands and was in possession thereof since 1953.

(3.) ON July 2, 1958, respondent No. 1 made an oral statement before the Aval Karkun, Taluka Anand, to the effect that the petitioner had taken away from him possession of the suit lands during the monsoon of 1955 -56 by giving him threats. That statement was recorded by the Aval Karkun. Thereafter the Mamlatdar, Anand, issued a show cause notice against the petitioner to ex plain why possession of the said lands taken by him from respondent No. 1 should not be declared disapproved. The Mamlatdar held an enquiry under Section 84B of the Act. The petitioner's case before the Mamlatdar was that he was in possession since 1953 and he denied that he had forcibly taken possession from respondent No. 1 during the year 1955 -56. The Mamlatdar rejected the petitioner's version and found that the petitioner had taken possession from respondent No. 1 sometime between June 15, 1955 and August 1, 1956. He held that respondent No. 1 had been dispossessed by the petitioner un -authorisedly and disapproving the possession of the petitioner ordered its restoration to respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Deputy Collector, Anand, being Tenancy Appeal No. 209 of 1958. The learned Deputy Collector found that respondent No. 1 was originally the owner of the land in question and that the same had been sold to the petitioner on condition that respondent No. 1 should continue to cultivate the land on crop share basis as a tenant. He also found that since the date of the conditional sale, respondent No. 1 was cultivating the land as a tenant on crop share basis. The learned Deputy Collector held that the suit lands had been taken possession of by the petitioner without a proper order of the Tenancy Court as required by Section 29 of the Act. On these findings, the learned Deputy Collector ordered restoration of possession of the suit land to respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Section 84B(2) and confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar. The petitioner challenged the orders of the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector before the Bombay Revenue Tribunal by his revision application. The Tribunal by its order dated March 30, 1959, dismissed the petitioner's revision application confirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector.