AMTHABHAI DALABHAI HARIJAN Vs. SOMABHAI VAGHABHAI GOHEL
LAWS(GJH)-2021-2-20
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on February 18,2021

Amthabhai Dalabhai Harijan Appellant
VERSUS
Somabhai Vaghabhai Gohel Respondents

JUDGEMENT

GITA GOPI, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment in Special Civil Application No.4663 of 1995. A common judgment and order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.09.2007 in Special Civil Application No.4651 of 1995 with Special Civil Application No.4663 of 1995, whereby the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the judgment and order, dated 29.04.1995 passed by the State Government [Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat (Appeals), Revenue Department].
(2.) The Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat Government, Ahmedabad, through its Common Order passed in Revision Application Nos.23/1993, 24/1992 and 1/1992, confirmed the Eviction Order and cancelled the N.A. Permission granted for residential purpose, considering the tenants as "unauthorized holders" under the provisions of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Watans Act' for short). The learned Single Judge while over-turning the order affirmed - Mohanbhai Somabhai and Becharbhai Somabhai, to be the 'Deemed Purchasers' and considered the sale of land in their favour to be in compliance of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act' for short) and subsequently considered the cancellation of N.A. Permission as bad and illegal.
(3.) The appellants herein claimed themselves to be the 'Watandars' of the land bearing Survey Nos.1581/A and 1581/B, situated at Anand. The appellants have challenged the status of Mohanbhai Somabhai and Becharbhai Somabhai of being "tenants" of the disputed land and have thereby, raised the grounds that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the tenants have failed to discharge the onus that they are the lawful tenants so to avail the benefit under Section 8 of the Watans Act. Further, unless the status of the landlord is not decided under Section 3 of the Watans Act, the tenants could not claim benefits under the provisions of Section 32 of the Tenancy Act and thereby the alleged "deemed purchaser" could not apply for N.A. Permission as being the tenant.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.