Gujarat High Court
Ramesh vs State on 22 August, 2008
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/695120/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6951 of 2008
=========================================================
RAMESH
SUKA CHAUDHARY & 11 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JOY MATHEW for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 12.
MR HUKUM SINGH, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : - 2.
MR DHIRENDRA
MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 3 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 22/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties for final disposal of the petition.
Petitioners herein have challenged an order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 17.3.08 in Revision Application No.TEN.BS.170/06 produced at Annexure A to the petition.
Respondent Nos.3 & 4 had approached the Deputy Collector, Olpad by filing application under section 84 and 83-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, contending, inter alia, that the present petitioners had occupied the land unauthorizedly. They had, therefore, prayed that the unauthorized occupation be summarily vacated. Deputy Collector, by his order dated 30th September 2006 remanded the proceedings to the Mamlatdar. Respondent Nos.3 & 4 thereupon approached the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Tribunal by its impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the petitioners are unauthorized occupants of the land in question and that to evict them under section 84 of the Tenancy Act is within the powers of the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector instead remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar which was not lawful. The Tribunal, accordingly, directed the Deputy Collector to evict the petitioners summarily under section 84 of the Tenancy Act.
I find that when no inquiry under section 84 was concluded either by the Deputy Collector or the Mamlatdar in the revision application filed by respondent No.3 & 4 herein, it was not possible for the Tribunal to conclude the issue of alleged unauthorized occupation of the petitioners. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that even the contention of the petitioners that application of respondent Nos.3 & 4 was not maintainable under section 84 of the Tenancy Act was not considered.
Considering all these aspects of the matter, I find that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The same is therefore, set aside.
Simultaneously, I have also found that respondent Nos.3 & 4 had approached the Deputy Collector under section 84 of the Tenancy Act. Under section 84 of the Tenancy Act, it is the power of the Collector to inquire into and remove the unauthorized occupation if ingredients thereof are satisfied. Such power primarily lies with the Collector which are delegated to the Deputy Collector. In any case, the Mamlatdar would not be authorized to exercise such powers. Remand by the Deputy Collector, therefore, by his order dated 30th September 2006 also was not proper. Under the circumstances, while setting aside the impugned judgment dated 17th March 2008 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 30th September 2006 remanding the proceedings to the Mamlatdar is also set aside.
In the result, application of respondent Nos.3 & 4 filed before the Deputy Collector under section 84 and 83A of the Tenancy Act stands revived. The Deputy Collector shall examine the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate order after hearing both sides. Surely, the contention of the petitioners that section 84 of the Tenancy Act does not apply at all will also be examined. I express no opinion in this respect.
With the above observations and directions, the petition is disposed of.
(Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn) Top