Govindbhai Premchandbhai Patel thro'' Poa Girishbhai S. Patel and Others vs State of Gujarat and Others

M.R. Shah, J.—In all these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, respective Petitioners have prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 2 to forthwith consider and adjudicate the Petitioners'' applications dated 06.05.2005, 04.10.2008 and September 2008 respectively submitted u/s 70(o) of the Bombay Tenancy Act.

It appears that in view of the proceedings pending before the Division Bench on the aspect with respect to jurisdiction of the authority to decide the application submitted u/s 70(o) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, the authority is not deciding the aforesaid applications submitted by the Petitioners u/s 70(o) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. When the question with respect to jurisdiction of the authority to decide the application u/s 70(o) of the Bombay Tenancy Act is pending before the Division Bench and unless and until the said dispute is resolved, when Respondent No. 2 has kept the applications pending it cannot be said that Respondent No. 2 has committed any error and/or illegality. Jurisdiction to decide the application u/s 70(o) of the Bombay Tenancy Act is a question which goes to the root of the matter and therefore, to avoid any multiplicity of proceedings, when Respondent No. 2 has kept the applications pending, according to this Court, Respondent No. 2 is justified in keeping the applications pending. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by Respondent No. 2 in not deciding the applications u/s 70(o) of the Act.

At this stage, Shri Sanjanwala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has submitted that without prejudice to the rights of the Petitioners to submit appropriate applications afresh, Petitioners are ready and willing to submit appropriate applications for determination of premium payable u/s 43 of the Act and in the meantime shall withdraw the aforesaid applications submitted u/s 70(o) of the Bombay Tenancy Act and if the Petitioners are ready and willing to pay/deposit premium as may be determined by the appropriate authority, in that case, Petitioners shall not submit application afresh u/s 70(o) of the Act. However, if the Petitioners are not agreeable to pay/deposit the premium that may be determined by the appropriate authority, in that case, Petitioners may submit appropriate application afresh u/s 70(o) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, which may be considered in accordance with law and on merits.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has submitted that the Petitioners shall withdraw the applications dated 06.05.2005, 04.10.2008 and September 2008 respectively u/s 70(o) of the Bombay Tenancy Act at this stage and request the appropriate authority to pass appropriate order for determining premium on the said application, which shall be submitted by the Petitioner u/s 43 of the Act, which may be directed to be decided in accordance with law and on merits at the earliest.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petitions are disposed of. Let the Petitioners withdraw the aforesaid applications dated 06.05.2005, 04.10.2008 and September 2008 submitted u/s 70(o) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, with a liberty in favour of the Petitioners to submit appropriate application afresh, in case the Petitioners are not agreeable to pay/deposit the premium as may be determined by the appropriate authority. On withdrawal of the aforesaid applications submitted by the Petitioners, it will be open for the Petitioners to submit appropriate applications before appropriate authority to determine the premium u/s 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act and to grant such a permission and to determine the premium for removing the restrictions to convert the same from new tenure to old tenure and the same shall be considered by the concerned authority in accordance with law and on merits after following due procedure and communicate the outcome of the same to the Petitioners. If the Petitioners are ready and willing to pay/deposit the premium as may be determined by the appropriate authority and actually pay the same, there is no question of further submitting applications by the Petitioners u/s 70(o) of the Act, as the Petitioners have accepted the land in question as new tenure land. In case, if not agreeable to premium as may be determined by the appropriate authority, in that case, it will be open for the Petitioners to revive the aforesaid applications by submitting fresh applications u/s 70(o) of the Act and as and when such applications are submitted, the same may be considered in accordance with law and on merits and the aforesaid exercise shall not come in the way of the Petitioners.

With this, present Special Civil Applications are disposed of.