AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.
1.0 By way of present petition, the Petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 08.01.1996 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal wherein the order dated 30.05.1992 passed by the Assistant Collector, Dabhoi was set aside and order dated 21.02.1991 passed by the Mamlatdar was confirmed.
2.0 The facts of the case are that the Petitioners are bona fide purchasers of land bearing Survey No. 96/19 admeasuring 9 acres 30 gunthas situated at village Rayan Talvadi in Vaghodia Taluka. The Respondent had initiated proceedings u/s 70-B of the Bombay Tenancy Act on the ground that she is a tenant. The said case, which was numbered as Tenancy Case No. 45/88 was decided by Mamlatdar and ALT, Vaghodia. The Mamlatdar allowed the application by his order dated 21.02.1991. Against the same, Petitioners preferred Appeal and the same was allowed by the Assistant Collector, Dabhoi by his order dated 30.05.1992. Against the said order, Respondent preferred Revision Application before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 08.01.1996 allowed the same quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.05.1992 passed by the Assistant Collector and confirmed the order dated 08.01.1996 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT. Hence, this petition.
3.0 Learned advocate for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent was never tenant of the land in question and she being a member of the Co-operative Society, there is no question of deciding her tenancy rights and the application itself u/s 70-B of the Bombay Tenancy Act is not maintainable. He further submitted that as the Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the lawful purchasers of the land in question and the same has been purchased by registered sale-deed, their rights cannot be taken away. It is further submitted by learned advocate for the Petitioner that so far as rent receipts produced by the Respondent are concerned, the same do not mention the survey number and it can never be said that the said receipts relate to the land in question. He further submitted that there is no evidence to prove that Respondent was cultivating the land in question as a tenant.
4.0 Learned advocate for the Respondent has supported the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the petition may be dismissed.
5.0 As a result of hearing and perusal of the documents on record, it is found from the order of the Assistant Collector, Dabhoi that he has considered the application filed by the Respondent deciding her as a tenant as not within time. The Tribunal has found from the deposition of the Respondent as well as other witnesses that they had made an application for recording their name in the Khed-kum column and in that they had claimed that they were cultivating the land for more than 20 to 25 years. It also appears from the case papers that the land in question has been sold to Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 on 10.09.1987 and entry to that effect has been effected in the record of rights on 28.01.1988 by mutation entry No. 886. It appears to have been examined on 30.07.1988 when it has been endorsed that the same be given to Petitioner No. 4 - Govindbhai Bhikhabhai Bharwad and certificate about the purchase being agriculturist be required to be produced. Thus, the Respondent has made an application for declaring her as a tenant on 04.11.1986 i.e within 6 months from the date on which her possession as a tenant had been tried to be disturbed. The Respondent is a member of the Petitioner-Society. On going through the case file of the Mamlatdar and A.L.T, it appears that the receipts which are shown in the name of Shanabha Bhajibhai also indicate that payment of rent has been made by Sindhiya Bhajibhai, who happens to be husband of the Respondent - Kashiben. Moreover, it also appears that Shanabhai Bhajibhai and Sindhiya Bhajibhai are real brothers. It appears therefore, that merely because there is a difference in name, it cannot relied upon. It further appears from the deposition of Shri Muljibhai Damodar Pandya who happened to be the Secretary of the Petitioner-Society that he has admitted in his evidence that Respondent was cultivating certain land from the lands which were granted to the society by the Corporation and she was paying rent of Rs. 1601/- per year. He has admitted in his cross-examination that it is true that amount of rent is in arrears from the Respondent and the land is in her possession and he had stated the same in his statement before the Circle Officer. From the record of the rent receipts produced by the Petitioner, it does not appear to be based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. However, it appers from the case file that the Mamlardar and ALT, Vaghodia had joined present Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 in the proceedings before him while passing the order. The Mamaltdar and A.L.T had issued notices of hearing to Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. They sought adjournment also and they had filed Vakalatnama of Shri M.I. Patel on their behalf. They had also filed their written statement jointly with Petitioner No. 1 and 2 on 27.02.2009 and they had produced the relevant extracts of village form No. 7/12. It is clear, therefore, that the Mamlatdar and ALT had given them opportunity of being heard. The contention raised by learned advocate for the Petitioners that they were not given opportunity of being heard, cannot therefore, be accepted.
6.0 In the premises aforesaid, I am in complete agreement with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly quashed and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. The petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.