Hiraben Wd/O Motibhai Jetha Bhai Mali vs Revaben Wd/O Manaji Chandaji Since ... on 26 November, 2015
15. Mr. Patel also submitted that the Tribunal has gone
beyond the order of remand made by the Deputy Collector and
confirmed by it which was for limited purpose just to consider
the irrigation certificate and not to decide the other issues
including the issue of grant of additional unit. However, in
view of what is observed by Tribunal in para 8 and 9 of its
earlier order dated 18.4.1986, the contention cannot be
accepted. Therefore, reliance placed by Mr. Patel on the
decision in the case of Raj Madhavsang Gulabsang Parmar
Page 18 of 22
HC-NIC Page 18 of 22 Created On Fri Nov 27 01:13:40 IST 2015
C/SCA/12744/2008 CAV JUDGMENT
Ranchhodbhai Galabsang & Ors., reported in 1976 GLR 689 on
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under sec. 76 of the Act will
have no application to the facts of the case. Mr. Patel also
relied on other judgments on the aspect of scope of remand
under Order 41, rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, ("CPC")
aspect of additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the
CPC, and on the aspects of the tenant's rights of retaining the
land as deemed purchaser vis-viz Ceiling Act. The Court
however finds that such judgments do not require
consideration in the facts of the case. Mr. Patel then relied on
the decision in the case of Patel Panubhai Shanabhai v. The
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Anr., reported in 1977 GLR 758 so
as to contend that the status of member of family
determination of surplus land should be by considering the
holdings on the appointed day. In the said judgment, the Court
held and observed in para 4 as under: