AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayant Patel, J.—The petitioner by this petition has prayed for the appropriate writ to set aside the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal at
Annexure-D; whereby, the Revenue Tribunal has allowed the revision and has set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT and the
appellate Authority. The short facts of the case appears to be that : the petitioners are the persons who claim to be declared as deemed tenant
under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as ''the Act''). As per the petitioners, since they were
cultivating the land, in Village Form No. VII & XII, the possession was shown as that of the petitioners. As per petitioners, they were entitled to
be declared as deemed tenant and also entitled to purchase the land. The Mamlatdar & ALT inquired into the matter and vide order dated
16.4.1981, found that the petitioner could be termed as deemed tenant and would be entitled to purchase the land. The matter was carried in
appeal and the said appeal was dismissed against which the revision was preferred by the respondent and the Tribunal has allowed the revision.
Under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court.
I have heard Mr. Panchal for Mr. Jani for the petitioners and Mr. Suthar learned counsel appearing for some of the contesting respondents. The
other respondents are served but none has appeared.
The perusal of the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal shows that there are finding of facts arrived at by the Tribunal after re-appreciation of
the evidence that the petitioners herein were cultivating the land in capacity as the mortgagee. The mortgage document had come on record and
therefore, the Tribunal found that the petitioner could not be termed as deemed tenant and therefore, the Tribunal has allowed the revision.
Section 4 of the Act, reads as under:
Section : 4 Persons to be deemed tenants.
A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the
owner and if such person is not-
(a) a member of the owner''s family; or
(b) a servant on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share or a hired labourer cultivating the land under the personal supervision of the
owner or any member of the owner''s family, or
(c) a mortgagee in possession. ....
The aforesaid shows that if the person was cultivating the land in capacity as mortgagee, he could not be termed as deemed tenant. The
Mamlatdar & ALT declined to consider the mortgage deed on a mere ground that it was not registered, in spite of the fact that the evidence came
on record for showing that there was transfer of mortgage and the possession was handed over in pursuance of the mortgage and the amount was
also paid in part and was further to be appropriated. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that Tribunal has committed any error apparent
on the face of the record.
Mr. Panchal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had also contended that there was delay in preferring the revision and Tribunal
therefore has committed error. In my view, the said contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the Tribunal has considered the
aspects of delay and has found that there was justifiable ground for condonation of delay. Such view cannot be said as perverse.
The other contention raised by Mr. Panchal pertains to not on the question of law but for assailing findings of facts which cannot be gone into by
this Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution. No question of law is brought to notice of this Court on the basis of
which, it can be said that the Tribunal has committed any error apparent on the face of the record or that the finding of the Tribunal could be
termed as perverse to the record of the case. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error which may call
for interference in exercise of the power under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition is meritless and therefore, dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. Rule discharged. At this stage, Mr.
Panchal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prays for continuation of the interim relief for some time so as to enable petitioners to
approach before the higher forum. Considering the facts and circumstances, for a period of 4 (four) weeks, status-quo as prevailing over the land
in question shall be maintained.