Mobile View
Advanced Search Search Tips
View Complete document
Prabhubhai vs State on 13 December, 2010
Showing the contexts in which bombay tenancy act 84 c appears in the document
Change context size
Current

By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - seller has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction to quash and set aside the judgement and order dtd.25/6/2006 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.26 of 2008, by which the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has dismissed the said Revision Application preferred by the petitioner confirming the order passed by the Dy.Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat dtd.23/4/2008 in Tenancy Case No. 28 of 2007 in dropping the proceedings against the private respondents herein under sec.84(C) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. That the petitioner was owner of the land in question and he sold the said land in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 11 herein by registered sale deed dtd.11/2/1986 on payment of full consideration and Mutation Entry No.552 dtd.13/2/1986 came to be recorded in the revenue record mutating the name of the purchasers. That after a period of nine years, the Collector, Surat initiated suo-motu proceedings of Revision against the Mutation Entry No.552 by registering RTS Case No.158 of 1994. That vide order dtd.27/7/1994, the Collector cancelled the said Mutation Entry No. 552. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Collector, Surat cancelling the Mutation Entry No. 552, the respondent Nos.4 to 11 purchasers preferred Revision Application before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, being Revision Application No.42 of 1995 which came to be allowed vide order dtd.18/12/1999 and Mutation Entry No.552 came to be restored. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat dtd.18/12/1999, the State preferred Special Civil Application No.9303 of 2003, which came to be dismissed by this Court on the ground that, proceedings were initiated by the Collector after unreasonable period. That thereafter, after a period of almost 19 year of the transaction and the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 11 dtd.11/2/1996, the Collector vide order communication dtd.29/1/2005 directed the Mamlatdar and ALT to initiated proceedings under sec.70(O) of the Bombay Tenancy Act and to examine whether the respondent Nos.4 to 11 purchasers were agriculturists or not. Accordingly, the Mamlatdar and ALT initiated proceedings under sec.70(O) of the Bombay Tenancy Act against the respondent Nos.4 to 11 by issuing notice dtd.3/1/2007. That the Mamlatdar and ALT by order dtd.31/8/2007 passed in Tenancy Case No.85 of 2006 recorded a finding that the respondent Nos.4 to 11 were agriculturists and they have committed breach of the provisions of sec.2(6) read with sec.63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act while purchasing the subject land. Consequently, the Mamlatdar and ALT issued direction under sec.84(C)(2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act directing to restore the possession of the suit land to its original position within a period of three months. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, the respondent Nos.4 to 11 preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 28 of 2007 and the Dy.Collector vide order dtd.23/4/2008 quashed and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT which came to be confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by the impugned judgement and order in the Revision Application filed by the petitioner - seller. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Dy.Collector as well as Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dtd.31/8/2007 passed in Tenancy Case No.85 of 2006, the petitioner - seller has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Mr.Navin Pahwa, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that at the time when the petitioner sold the land in question in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 11, he was made to aware that respondent Nos.4 to 11 purchasers are agriculturists, however, subsequently, it has been found that the respondent Ns.4 to 11 were not agriculturists at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the Dy.Collector as well as the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal have quashed and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT mainly on the ground that proceedings were initiated by the Mamlatdar and ALT belatedly and after unreasonable period. It is further submitted that both the authorities below have not actually gone into the merits of the case as to whether at the relevant time the respondent Nos.4 to 11 were agriculturists or not. It is submitted that, as such, the finding given by the Mamlatdar and ALT that the respondent Nos.4 to 11 were not agriculturists, is not upset either by the Dy.Collector or the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. It is submitted that sale in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 11 is declared invalid and therefore, the land is required to be disposed of under sec.84(C) of the Bombay Tenancy Act and the petitioner as a seller can be re-granted the land in question. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner has locus to prefer the present petition.