Rabari Mashrubhai Bhalabhai vs State of Gujarat and Others

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of the present petition, the Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad, dated 28.2.1995, passed in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/35 of 1990, confirming the order of the Assistant Collector dated 25.10.1989 in Tenancy Appeal No. 59 of 1988 and the order dated 11.2.1959 of the Mamlatdar and ALT.

The brief facts of the case are that, the Petitioner purchased the land bearing Survey No. 147/1 Paiki 8 Acres 21 gunt has from its owner Raja Mohamad Noor Mohammad, Respondent No. 3 herein by registered sale deed on 29.5.1956. It is alleged that the sale in favour of the Petitioner was declared invalid u/s 84-B of the Act and the Mamlatdar vide order dated 30.5.1958, ordered that possession of the land should be handed over to Habib Bhai Noor Mohamad. The appeal preferred before the Assistant Collector, Patan allowed the appeal vide order dated 18.11.1958 and remanded the case back for holding fresh inquiry in accordance with law.

2.2 The Mamlatdar and ALT declared the sale invalid and decided to give possession of the land to the tenant Habib Noor Mohamad vide his order dated 11.2.1959. The Respondent No. 1- the alleged tenant submitted the written statement before the Assistant Collector on 5.9.1989. The Assistant Collector, vide his order dated 25.10.1989 dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner.

2.3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner preferred revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide its judgment and order dated 28.2.1995 dismissed the revision application preferred by the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel Mr. Patel for the Petitioner submitted that the orders of the authorities below are contrary to law and facts and evidence on record of the case. He has submitted that the Petitioner had purchased the land by a registered sale deed dated 29.5.1956 from its original owner and the Mamlatdar has initiated proceedings u/s 84-C of the Act. It is alleged that Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case as it would apply only to transfer or acquisition of any land made after commencement of the Amending Act, 1955 which came into force with effect from 1.8.1956 while the sale in favour of the Petitioner was before that date I.e. 29.5.1956 and hence, the provisions of Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act are not applicable to the present case. He has further submitted that the Mamlatdar has absolutely No. jurisdiction to decide the case u/s 84-C of the Tenancy Act because of inherent jurisdiction to decide or initiate the proceedings. It is further stated by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 2-tenant has clearly stated before the Collector in writing that he was never a tenant of the land and was never in possession and his name was wrongly entered in the revenue record. According to learned Counsel, inspite of this, the Assistant Collector has not taken into account the aforesaid submission of the Respondent No. 2 and that he has No. authority or jurisdiction to go behind the said admission of Respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that a party has always his right to waive his right in the proceedings over any property and therefore, he has No. business to go behind the admission of the Respondent No. 2 and therefore, the petition is required to be allowed. It is further alleged that even though the Petitioner has purchased the land by registered sale deed dated 29.5.1956 and that the name of the Petitioner was there in the revenue record since 1956, the Mamlatdar and ALT has never issued any notice to the Petitioner regarding the proceedings. The Petitioner has been given any opportunity of hearing and has passed the order in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that even though this point was urged before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has not properly dealt with the same.

3.1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted the proceedings u/s 84-B or 84-C of the Act is required to be initiated even within a reasonable period. But the present proceedings have been initiated after a long period of more than two years and therefore, the Mamlatdar has No. authority or jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings. The learned Counsel further submitted that the though it was urged before the Deputy Collector as well as before the Tribunal that the case may be decided as per the judgment in Tenancy Appeal No. 58 of 1988. However, the said authorities have rejected the said contentions. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was a necessary and proper party and before the Mamlatdar and ALT when the proceedings were initiated suo-motu by the Mamlatdar it was the duty of the Mamlatdar to join the Petitioner as party to the proceedings which has been done and the order has been passed behind the back of the Petitioner, without giving him an opportunity of being heard. According to the learned Counsel, though the contention was raised with regard to Section 84-C of the Act being not applicable to the facts of the case, the Tribunal has not discussed the same as well as other points raised on behalf of the Petitioner and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is perverse and it does not contain any reason in support of its conclusion and hence, the order is bad in law. It is further stated that the name of the Petitioner was there in the revenue record since 1956 and the entry in favour of the Petitioner was also certified, which has not been considered by the authorities and therefore, the orders passed by the authorities below are illegal and bad in law.

I have heard learned Counsel Mr. Patel for the Petitioner and have also gone through the judgment and orders of the authorities below. In my opinon, since the Tribunal has found that the Collector has come to the conclusion that the transaction was under the provisions of Section 84-B of the Act, he remanded the matter, I.e. Case No. 59 of 1988 to the Mamlatdar after considering the evidence on record and therefore, dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Collector. In my view, since the matter has already been remanded by the Tribunal as the issue involved in the case is covered under the provisions of Section 84-B of the Act, to the Mamlatdar to consider the case on merits, No. interference is warranted by this Court.

In view of the above, the petition is rejected. Rule is discharged, with No. order as to costs. Interim relief shall stand vacated.