State of Gujarat vs Laxmanji Hemaji and Another

Jayant Patel, J.

1 Both the appeals are preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the concerned petitions, whereby the direction has been issued to the Mamlatdar to redetermine the price u/s 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

The relevant facts are that the original Petitioners were asserting the claim over the land in question as tenant under the Act. The matter was referred to the Mamlatdar & ALT who ultimately conferred the status upon the original Petitioners as that of the tenant. Simultaneously, the purchase price was also required to be fixed by the Mamlatdar & ALT and the same was fixed at 200 times the revenue assessment with interest at the rate of 4.5% from 01.04.1957 till the date of the order. The original Petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT to the extent of fixation of price at 200 times revenue assessment, preferred Special Civil Applications before this Court. The learned Single Judge found that since the original Petitioners were in possession and cultivating the land as tenant, the fixation of price at 200 times assessment is arbitrary and hence, he quashed the order of the Mamlatdar to that extent and has directed for reconsideration of the matter for fixation of price u/s 32G of the Act. It is under these circulated, the present appeal before this Court.

We may record that the order passed by the learned Single Judge at the first instance was passed in Special Civil Application No. 8786/97 on 03.09.1998 and thereafter, in Special Civil Application No. 8985/97, the learned Single Judge has referred to the same order passed in Special Civil Application No. 8786/97 and has also remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar for fixation of the price u/s 32G of the Act. Hence, the State has approached to this Court against both the orders of the learned Single Judge in the present appeals.

We have heard Mr. Nanavati, learned AGP appearing for the State and Mr. Dave with Mr. Gajendra Gadkar and Mr. Chauhan for Mr. J.M. Patel for Mr. Shastri by the original Petitioners.

It was contended by the learned AGP that against the order of the Mamlatdar & ALT, which has been partly set aside by the learned Single Judge, the matter is carried in appeal by the State before the Deputy Collector and in the said appeal, the interim stay is also subsequently granted. He submitted that if the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not interfered with, it would prejudice the rights of the Appellant State in the appeal before the Deputy Collector for the status of the original Petitioners as that of the tenant and he also submitted that the issued would be further complicated inasmuch as the Mamlatdar on the one hand shall be required to decide the matter on the premise that the original Petitioners are tenant, whereas the status of tenant itself is the subject matter of appeal pending before the Deputy Collector. He therefore submitted that in case if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the direction, the Court may suitably for the pending appeal and the status to be decided as that of the original Petitioners as tenant over the land in question.

Whereas Mr. Dave, learned Counsel appearing for one of the claimant who is claiming the interest over the land contended that the claim of the original Petitioners as tenant of the land is illegal and the decision of the Mamlatdar & ALT is also improper.

Whereas Mr. Chauhan appearing for the original Petitioners supported the order of the learned Single Judge by contending that after undertaking the inquiry on facts, the status as tenant is confirmed and he submitted that in any case, the Petitioners were not aggrieved by that part of the order of the Mamlatdar and such was limited to the fixation of the price u/s 32G of the Act. He therefore submitted that when a direction is given for reconsideration of the matter, no prejudice is caused.

Considering the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that the petitions were examined only on the aspects of fixation of price and at 200 times by Mamlatdar & ALT. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention that merely because the direction has been given by the learned Single Judge to reconsider the matter for fixation of price, indirectly the status as that of the tenant of the original Petitioners is confirmed. It is hardly required to be clarified that if the status of the original Petitioners as that of the tenant is challenged in the proceedings of the appeal, the Appellant authority will be at the liberty to take independent view of the matter and the order passed by the learned Single Judge would not operate to control his power in examining the status of the original Petitioners as that of the tenant since the said aspect was not the subject matter of the petition before the learned Single Judge.

No other contention is raised. Hence, subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.