Gujarat High Court
Ambalal Somabhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 21 June, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)3GLR557, 2004 A I H C 3800, (2004) 3 GUJ LR 2397
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
JUDGMENT M.R. Shah, J.
1. Rule. Shri K.P.Raval, Learned AGP waives of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
2. In the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara dated 5.4.2002 confirmed by the State Government in Revision Application by its order dated 21.5.2003 by which the application of the petitioners for declaration of permanent tenant under Section 70(o) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") has been rejected.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the father of the petitioners i.e. Somabhai Bhikhabhai Parmar was cultivating land bearing R.S.No.1033 paiki admeasuring 2 acres and 27 gunthas of land situated at Village Bapod, Taluka District Vadodara and they are the heirs of deceased Somabhai and as Somabhai was a tenant of the land in question prior to commencement of the Act for a period of more than 10 years, the petitioners were entitled to get declaration of permanent tenant under Section 70(o) of the Act and accordingly, the petitioners have moved an application before the respondent no.2 Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara for a declaration of permanent tenant under Section 70(o) of the Act. It is the case of the petitioners that alongwith the said application, the petitioners have produced all the relevant documentary evidence showing that the father of the petitioners were cultivating the land in question as a tenant for a period of more than 30 to 40 years. Inspite of the aforesaid facts, the respondent no.2 by its order dated 5.4.2002 dismissed the said application by holding that there is no evidence on record to prove that the forefathers of the petitioners were cultivating land bearing S.No.1033 as a tenant for a period between 1.1.1936 to 1.8.1956 and/or for 10 years.
4. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dated 5.4.2002, the petitioners had preferred a Revision Application before the State Government, Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar and the State Government by its order dated 21.5.2003 rejected the said application without assigning any reasons whatsoever. That being aggrieved with and dissatisfied with both the orders, the petitioners have preferred the present Special Civil Application before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Shri B.S.Patel, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners had submitted that the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara in rejecting their application for a declaration declaring them as a permanent tenant under Section 70(o) of the Act is absolutely illegal and most arbitrary and the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara has failed in considering the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the petitioners alongwith the application. In the alternative, he has also submitted that the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 21.5.2003 is in fact a non-speaking and non-reasoned order and no reasons are assigned whatsoever for rejecting the revision application and confirming the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara dated 5.4.2002. Therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the orders passed by both the authorities below and allow the Special Civil Application accordingly.
6. On the other hand, Learned AGP Shri K.P.Raval has tried to support the order passed by both the authorities below. He has submitted that as both the authorities below have concurrently found that the petitioners are not entitled to a declaration as prayed for under Section 70(o) of the Act, the petition should be dismissed.
7. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 21.5.2003 is a non-speaking and non-reasoned order and no reasons whatsoever have been given by the Revisional Authority in rejecting the revision application and confirming the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara dated 5.4.2002 in rejecting the application of the petitioners under Section 70(o) of the Act, this Court proposes to dispose of the present Special Civil Application quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 21.5.2003 and remanding the matter to the Revisional Authority for deciding the same in accordance with law and on merits and to pass a reasoned order. The Revisional Authority is exercising quasi-judicial powers. The Revisional Authority is required to assign reasons either to allow the revision application and/or to dismiss the revision application. The Revisional Authority cannot pass an order without assigning any reasons. Not assigning any reasons would lead to arbitrariness. If the order passed by the Revisional Authority is challenged before the higher authority and/or before this Court and if the reasons are not assigned, the Higher Authority and/or this Court would not be in a position to know what was passing in the mind of the Revisional Authority while rejecting the application. Therefore, the Revisional Authority is bound to give reasons and deal with the contentions raised by the revisionist in the revision application and/or at the time of hearing of the revision application. While emphasizing the need to pass a reasoned order, the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Certified Area Committee Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation reported in 2002 (10) SCC Page 87 has observed as under:-
"The reasons are the flesh and blood of judicial adjudication and such reasons must be shown in the orders which are liable to be challenged in the Superior Court".
8. Under the circumstances, as in the order dated 21.5.2003, no reasons are given for rejecting the application and confirming the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara dated 5.4.2002, the impugned order dated 21.5.2003 passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. State of Gujarat Revenue Department is required to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Revenue Department, State of Gujarat for deciding the revision application submitted by the petitioners against the order dated 5.4.2002 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara in rejecting their application under Section 70(o) of the Act on merits and in accordance with law and to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Such an exercise is required to be done by the Revisional Authority as early as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. It is, however, made clear that the respondents are required to consider the application of the petitioners under Section 70(o) of the Act considering the position the day on which the petitioners have moved an application before the Mamlatdar & ALT, Vadodara for a declaration under Section 70(o) of the Act. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.