S.H.SHETH - (1.)Khodabhai Chhaganbhai the father of petitioners Nos. 2 to 8 and husband of petitioner No. 1 was the tenant in respect of S. Nos. 178/2 179 and 180 of village Tarsali in Padra Taluka of Baroda district. S. No. 178/2 has been admeasuring 7 Gunthas S. No. 179 has been admeasuring 2 acres and 34 Gunthas and S. No. 180 has been admeasuring 34 Gunthas. They belonged to one Bai Jadav widow of Somabhai Punjabhai. Since Bai Jadav was a widow statutory purchase of these lands under sec. 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act for the sake of brevity) was postponed. Bai Jadav died on 14th February 1961. She had one son Mangaldas who had pre-deceased her. She was survived by three daughters who are the respondents Nos. 1 2 and 3 to this petition. On 6th August 1956 Bai Jadav executed a will by which she bequeathed these lands upon respondent No. 4 Ashokkumar who is the son of one of her daughters-Savita respondent No. 2. Khodabhai the tenant died on 13th November 1956. During the life time of Bai Jadav Khodabhai could not exercise his right of statutory purchase of these lands under the Tenancy Act on account of the special protection granted to the widows. Under the relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act to which we are shortly referring he could not exercise that right of his until the expiry of one year from the date of death of Bai Jadav that is to say until 14th February 1962. Between 14th February 1962 and 13th November 1965 when Khodabhai died he voluntarily did not exercise that right of his. On 29th July 1967 the petitioners as the heirs and legal representatives of Khodabhai applied to the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal to fix the purchase price of these lands with the object of effecting in their favour a statutory purchase thereof. The Mamlatdar found that by virtue of the will which Bai Jadav had made in favour of the respondent No. 4 the latter had become the owner of these lands. Since the respondent No. 4 was a minor on 14th February 1961 when Bai Jadav died and since the Tenancy Act granted the minors certain special privileges and protection the statutory purchase of these lands would be further postponed until the expiry of one year from the date on which Ashokkumar respondent No. 4 would attain majority that is to say until 24-6-1970. 24th June 1969 was the date on which respondent No. 4 attained majority. He also held that respondents Nos. 1 2 and 3three daughters of Bai Jadav-were not necessary parties to the proceedings. In view of these findings of his he ordered the postponement of the statutory purchase until 24th June 1970.
(2.)Against that order of the Mamlatdar the petitioners appealed to the Deputy Collector who after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal on 1 June 1971. The petitioners challenged that order in a Revision Application which they filed before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. By its order dated 19th July 1972 the Revenue Tribunal dismissed the Revision Application. It is under these circumstances that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders made against the petitioners.
(3.)Before we proceed to examine the contentions raised by Mr. Shah who appears for the petitioners it may be noted that on 15th November 1966 succession certificate was granted by the Civil Court to respondent. No. 4 in respect of the will of Bai Jadav. Under it he is the sole legatee. On 25th November 1969 respondent No. 4 filed against the petitioners an application before the Mamlatdar under sec. 14 read with sec. 29 of the Tenancy Act for recovering possession of these lands. That application is now pending at a revisional stage before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. In January 1970 respondent No. 4 filed against the petitioners another application under sec. 31 read with sec. 29 of the Tenancy Act for recovering possession of these lands which is also pending. On 21st August 1969 the petitioners made another application to the Mamlatdar for fixing the purchase price of these lands. This petition came up for hearing before Mr. Justice A. D. Desai who referred it to the larger Bench because an important question of construction of sec. 32 F and sec. 31 of the Tenancy Act is involved.
;