Thakor Shivaji Takhaji vs Pushpaben and Others

Honourable Mr. Justice K.S. Jhaveri

By way of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 13.04.1999 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. 4 of 1991 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the said revision application filed by the Petitioner and confirmed the order dated 27.11.1990 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Mehsana in Case No. Tenancy/Review/105/87 whereby the Deputy Collector remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar & ALT for fresh inquiry and to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

The fact of the case in brief is that the Petitioner claims tenancy right on the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 664 admeasuring 5 Acres 2 Gunthas of village Siddhpur, Tal. Siddhpur, Dist. Mehsana and that the said land had been subsequently (in the year 1966 - 67) sold to him by the Respondent No. 1, the original occupant, directly through Regd. Sale Deed and thereby the Petitioner had become the owner of the land. The aforesaid land was originally allocated to the Respondent No. 1 by the State Government by order dated 30.11.1968. However, prior to that in 1966 - 67, the Petitioner claiming to be tenant had purchased this land directly from Respondent No. 1 and Entry No. 3023 was duly posted and certified by the revenue authorities. Inspite of this, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Siddhpur initiated proceedings u/s 84C by registering Tenancy Case No. 84C/3488/1986 on the aforesaid transfer and sale of the land to the Petitioner by Respondent No. 1 was in violation of the provisions of the Act and after completion of this proceedings, the Mamlatdar & ALT vide his order dated 29.09.1986 regularized the possession of the land by Petitioner as tenant on payment of token price of Rs. 1/-.

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Mehsana took the matter on review u/s 76A of the Act and by his order dated 27.11.1990, quashed and set aside the order dated 29.09.1986 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT in Tenancy Case No. 3488 of 1986 and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar & ALT for fresh inquiry and proceedings in the matter by taking into account fresh evidence wherever necessary and to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner preferred Revision Application No. 4 of 1991 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 13.04.1999 dismissed the said revision application filed by the Petitioner and confirmed the order dated 27.11.1990 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Mehsana in Case No. Tenancy/Review/105/87 whereby the Deputy Collector remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar & ALT for fresh inquiry and to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

I have heard Mr. B.S. Supehia, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

I have gone through the orders passed by the authorities below. The Tribunal in its impugned judgment has rightly observed that and Respondent No. 1 had got his land from the State Government under the restricted tenure by an order u/s 32P (2) (8) of the Act and hence, the Respondent No. 1 could not have sold or transferred the land in question to the Petitioner directly by Registered Sale Deed or even otherwise, without the previous permission of the competent authorities, the Mamlatdar & ALT has rightly initiated the proceedings u/s 84C of the Act. The relevant observations and findings of the Tribunal is extracted below:

Therefore, from the above analysis of the case, it appears that all the relevant entries in V.F. 6 (Entry No. 3023, 4088 and specially Entry No. 5294 and also the entries in V.F. 7x12 for the above mentioned years) would go to show that there is nothing to establish that Shivaji Takhaji was actually given any status of tenancy rights on the aforesaid land. On the other hand, it is proved on record that original tenant was Mohanji Raghuji (Kaluji) who had forsaken his rights as tenant on the said land, which ultimately made the revenue authorities to issue the regrant order of the said order to the Respondent No. 1 - Raval Punjiram Shankarlal as an occupant under Gharkhed under the provisions of Section 32P (2) (8) of the Act under the restricted tenure. Therefore, from an analysis of the case as above, it becomes clear that the Respondent No. 1 - Raval Punjiram Shankarlal had got his land from the State Authorities under the restricted tenure by an order u/s 32P (2) (8) of the Act and, therefore, the Respondent No. 1 - Raval Punjiram Shankarlal could not have sold or transferred this land to the applicant - Shivaji Takhatji directly by such Registered Sale Deed or even otherwise, without the previous permission of the competent authorities under the relevant provisions of the Act, and, therefore, the proceedings regarding the aforesaid transaction of the land between the Respondent No. 1 and the applicant was rightly initiated u/s 84C of the Act by the Mamlatdar & ALT in his aforesaid proceedings in the Case No. 3488 of 1986 dated 29.09.1986, but subsequently, in the same order, the Mamlatdar & ALT''s decision to regularize the sale by payment of a token price of Rs. 1/- by the present applicant on the plea that he was tenant of this land was, according to me, not correct and legal in view of the fact that, as mentioned in my analysis above, applicant Shivaji Takhaji''s right as tenant on this land could not be established legally based on the facts and evidence on record and, therefore, the Mamlatdar''s final order in the aforesaid judgment dated 29.09.1986 was not legal and proper and, therefore, according to me, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, in his review proceedings has rightly analysed the matter as contained in para 3 of the judgment and had rightly quashed the order of the Mamlatdar & ALT dated 29.09.1986 and has rightly remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar & ALT for fresh inquiry and proceedings in this case after obtaining new evidence and details on record and after giving due opportunities to the parties concerned.

In view of the fact that the Petitioner has purchased the restricted property and there is nothing on record to show that previous permission of the Authority is taken, in that view of the matter, the view expressed by the Tribunal is just and proper. No interference is called for by this Court. The petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.