Ganesh Kaxmnbhai Jadav and Others vs Jerambhai Bababhai Chunara and Another

K.S. Jhaveri, Adv.

By way of present petition, the petitioners have inter alia prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25th September 2000 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN-B.A.106/1992; order dated 20th April 1988 passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, City Taluka, District Ahmedabad, in Tenancy Case No. 80 of 1986 as well as order dated 29th January 1992 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Appeal, Ahmedabad, in Tenancy Appeal No. 94 of 1990.

It is the case of the petitioners that the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Taluka City, District Ahmedabad, made inquiry vide Tenancy Case No. 80 of 1986 and declared the respondent No. 1 herein u/s 32(O) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') as the ''tenant'' of the suit lands bearing Survey Nos. 137, 138, 142, 143 and 182 vide order dated 20th April 1988. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 94 of 1990 before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Appeals, Ahmedabad, which ultimately came to be rejected vide order dated 29th January 1992. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners preferred Revision Application No. TEN-B.A.106/1992, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 25th April 2000. Hence, present petition.

Mr. J.M. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that the suit lands being new and impartible tenure with respect to which no tenancy could be created without prior permission of the Collector and, therefore, even if it is assumed that Lakshmanbhai created tenancy in favour of the respondent No. 1 herein, such tenancy becomes ipso facto null and void and on right is created in favour of respondent No. 1; that the application for conversion of land given by Lakshmanbhai and others proves the possession of the suit lands with them in the year 1983 and, therefore, the application u/s 32(O) of the Act is not maintainable in the eye of law; that the order dated 30th March 1986 passed by the City Mamlatdar in R.T.S. Case No. 19 of 1984 in respect of application dated 11th November 1983 operates as bar under the principle of res-judicata; that the suit lands ceased to be agricultural lands since 17th February 1976 and were vacant lands and, therefore, there is no question of applicability of Tenancy Act u/s 42 of the Act and, thereby he has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders.

Mr. P.M. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1, has submitted that the orders passed by the respondent-authorities are absolutely just, proper and correct. There is no illegality in the orders passed by the respondent-authorities. The authorities have passed the orders after appreciating the relevant aspects of the matter. Hence, present petition is required to be dismissed.

Having considered the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner, averments made in the petition and the documentary evidence produced on record, it transpires that Entry No. 3599 dated 13th June 1983 certified on 17th September 1983 shows that the land was converted into old tenure on payment of certain amount vide order dated 19th April 1983 passed by the City Deputy Collector, wherein one of the conditions was that if the land is sold for N.A. purpose, 50% of the market price will be recovered as premium. In the present case, the land is not sold for N.A. Purpose and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the land is new tenure and was let out to the tenant for agricultural purpose is not valid and cannot be accepted. So far as the contention of the petitioner with respect to cause of action is also not maintainable, since the same is categorically mentioned in the application dated 13th May 1986. It is pertinent to note that what is decided in RTS matter is not relevant so far as tenancy laws are concerned as the Tenancy Act decides about the relationship between the landlord and tenant. Further, it is required to be noted that in view of provision of Section 142 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the State laws relating to Urban Land Ceiling will not operate where the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 is applicable. However, the issue in the case is not under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, but the same is under the Tenancy Act. Further, there are three concurrent findings of facts recorded by the lower authorities. It is pertinent to note that the land is lawfully cultivated by the respondent No. 1 as a tenant, which is also proved before the Tribunal by producing panchkyas of the land, whereby it is specifically mentioned that respondent No. 1 is in possession and also having a house on the said land where he is living with his family.

In view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the view taken by three authorities below is just and proper. The authorities below have assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the conclusion. Over and above the reasons assigned hereinabove, I adopt the reasons assigned by the authorities below and do not find any illegality much less any perversity in the findings recorded by the authorities below. I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the authorities below. No case is made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the said authorities. Hence, present petition deserves to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, present petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.