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

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

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

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