AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.R. Shah, J.—By way of this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/607 of 1992 dtd.30/8/1999, by which the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has dismissed the said revision application preferred by the Petitioners.
Facts leading to the present Special Civil Application, in nutshell, are as under:
The land in question was owned by Barot Virmabhai Karshanbhai and others. The said land came to be purchased by the Petitioner No. 1 - Amrabhai Samtabhasi Kanbi (Patel) and Harjibhai Samtabhai Kanbi (Patel), jointly, by registered sale deed and Mutation Entry No. 296 was made in the revenue record on 20/12/1979. It appears that the proceedings were initiated against the Petitioners and another - purchasers for breach of Sections 2(2), 2(6) and 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act ("Bombay Tenancy Act" for short) on the ground that the respective purchasers - Petitioner No. 1 and Manilal Keshavlal Patel were not agriculturists within the area of 8 K Ms. The Mamlatdar and ALT, Deesa, by order dtd.20/7/1989 passed order in Tenancy Case No. 40 of 1988 declaring the sale in favour of the Petitioner No. 1 and said Manilal Keshavlal Patel in breach of Sections 84(C)(3)(a) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Deesa dtd.20/7/1989 in Tenancy Case No. 40 of 1988, the Petitioner No. 1 and said Manilal Keshavlal Patel preferred appeal being Tenancy Appeal No. 3 of 1992 before the Dy. Collector, Palanpur and the Dy. Collector, Palanpur dismissed the said appeal observing that so far as the Petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he is holding land within 6.5 K Ms and therefore, there is no breach of provisions of Bombay Tenancy Act so far as Petitioner No. 1 is concerned, however, so far as another purchaser - Manilal Keshavlal Patel is concerned, he was not holding agricultural land within 8 K Ms and therefore, the Dy. Collector held that there is breach of Sections 2(2), 2(6) and 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act.
It appears that in the meantime, the said another purchaser - Manilal Keshavlal Patel relinquished his right from the land in question.
That thereafter, the Petitioners preferred Revision Application No. TEN/BA/607 OF 1992 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by the judgment and order dtd.30/8/1999 has been pleased to dismiss the said revision application confirming the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT as well as Dy. Collector, holding that the sale in favour of the Petitioner No. 1 and another is in breach of Sections 2(6) and 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the Petitioners have preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. Kishor Prajapati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has submitted that in view of the subsequent amendment in the Bombay Tenancy Act vide Ordinance No. 5 of 2000 dtd.6/11/2000, present proceedings are required to be declared abated. In support of his above submission, Mr. Prajapati has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Patel Dhanjibhai Parshottambhai and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in 2002 (2) GLH 463. By making above submissions and relying upon above submissions, it is requested to allow present petition, declaring the proceedings having been abated. Mr. Pranav Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader is not in a position to dispute the above and is not in a position to dispute that the proceedings are now required to be declared abated.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the amendment in the Bombay Tenancy Act vide Ordinance No. 5 of 2000 dtd.6/11/2000, all the pending proceedings arising out of the breach of Sections 2(6) and 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act on the ground that the purchaser was not holding agricultural land within 8 K Ms are required to be abated. Under the circumstances, pending proceedings are required to be abated.
In view of the above, all the orders passed by the authorities below against the interest of the Petitioners as well as the present proceedings are ordered to be abated and accordingly present petition is disposed of. No costs.