Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The petitioners, in this petition, have challenged the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 31-3-1992 in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 421 of 1991 confirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (Appeal), Kheda, who in turn had confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Anand on 20th July, 1983 in Tenancy Case No. 485/6/82. The petitioners have made the prayer for quashing and setting aside of all these 3 orders.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have made an application under Section 32PP of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Anand, in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 99/4, admeasuring about 1 Acre and 17 Gunthas of Village-Karamsar, Taluka-Anand, District-Kaira. The said application was registered as the Tenancy Case No. 482/C/82. The petitioners have, inter alia, contended in the said application that deceased Mathurbhai Dhulabhai Bhoi, their predecessor-in-title, was cultivating the said land on 1-4-1957 and that the petitioners were the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Mathurbhai, and that compulsory purchase under Section 32G of the Act had become ineffective and that possession of the land in dispute was not taken from the tenant lawfully by the landlord and, therefore, the application under Section 32PP of the Act was required to be granted. It was further contended by the petitioners that in the said proceedings before the Mamlatdar and A.L.T., the respondents had appeared and contended that the possession of the land in dispute was taken from the tenant by virtue of the order passed by the competent authority and as such the land in dispute was lawfully disposed of, and therefore, application under Section 32PP was not maintainable at all. The learned Mamlatdar & A.L.T., Anand by his judgment and order dated 20th July, 1983 dismissed the said application.

5. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order and judgment of the Tribunal dated 31-3-1992, have preferred the present petition before this Court and contended that the authorities below have failed to appreciate the impact of Section 32PP of the Act on the facts of the present case, and therefore, they have committed an error apparent on the face of the orders which was required to be corrected by this Court. It was further contended that the land in dispute was not disposed of in accordance with law, and therefore, the provisions of Section 32PP of the Act were squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. It was further contended that the predecessor-in-title was the lawful tenant of the land in dispute and the sale had become ineffective and as such the land was never disposed of in accordance with law and therefore the application filed by the petitioners before the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. under Section 32PP of the Act was maintainable. It was further contended that the disposal of land in accordance with law has a special connotation and requirements and as such the same are required to be scrupulously followed in order to exclude the operations of Section 32PP of the Act. The petitioners have also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Rampuri Kalupuri Swami and Anr. v. Nathalal Ishwarbhai Hargovanbhai Shah, 1976 GLR 81, wherein it is held as under :

"The whole scheme of 1973 Amendment is to give this right to purchase to the tenant who had remained in actual possession, notwithstanding that there had been some order under Section 32P or an attempt to dispossess him by taking only paper possession. The whole test created by the legislature in this explanation is that the land is not deemed to be disposed of till actual possession is taken under the lawful direction issued under Section 32P(2) by the person entitled in accordance with law. Therefore, if dispossession was not in accordance with law, by ignoring of fetter of Sub-clause (5), either because of retrospectivity created by the supplementary fiction in Sub-sections (1B) and 1(D) of Section 32PP which restored the rights without any hiatus, or because the said mandate was violated by any further action purporting to give actual possession after the person entitled had actually applied under Section 32PP or 32PPP within the extended period during the pendency of such application, or for any other reason, if the actual possession had continued with the tenant, the second condition by resorting to this explanation would be deemed to be fulfilled, notwithstanding the passing of the order under Section 32P(2), and the application under Section 32PP would be maintainable."

10. It was further submitted that the order of the Mamlatdar passed under Section 32P of the Act was never challenged by the petitioners and after about 18 years, the present petitioners have made an application before the Mamlatdar under Section 32PP of the Act in the year 1982 and they have also moved an application under Section 70(nb) of the Act praying for the relief that he was in possession of the land and his possession should be protected. In the said proceedings, the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. had disposed of the said application filed under Section 70(nb) of the Act on 17-1-1983 and held that the petitioners were not in possession and therefore not entitled to get any injunction under the said Section. As stated earlier, the Mamlatdar & A.L.T., has thereafter, finally disposed of the application filed under Section 32PP of the Act on 20th July, 1983. It was further contended that after the period of appeal was over the land in question was purchased by 3 different sale deeds dated 27-8-1983, 9-9-1983 and 29-9-1983.