THAKORLAL AMBALAL PATEL Vs. NAGARBHAI PARSHOTTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 18/08/1978 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN. B. S. 177 of 1976 confirming the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Collector Chorasi Prant Surat in Tenancy Appeal No. 14 of 1976 who confirmed the order passed by the Additional Mamlatdar and A.L.T. Chorasi holding that respondents Nos. 1 & 2 were entitled to purchase the land bearing S. No. 210/2 admeasuring 0 acre-25 gunthas of the sim of village Jahangirabad Taluka Chorasi along with the bungalow and well situated on the said land the petitioner has filed this Special Civil Application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) S. No. 210/2 admeasuring 0 acres-25 gunthas assessed at Rs. 4 P. of village Jahangirabad Taluka Chorasi was owned by the widow Bai Ujamben-respondent No. 3. Now it is not disputed in this petition that respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were tenants of the land. No revision application was filed by the landlord contending that respondents Nos. 1 & 2 are not tenants of the said land. Proceedings under sec. 32-G were initiated by the Mamlatdar & Agricultural Lands Tribunal for fixing the purchase price of the land. He fixed the purchase price of the land at Rs. 800.00 for the bungalow also Rs. 800.00 and that of well at Rs. 800.00 by his judgment and order dated 20-8-75.

(3.) Against the said judgment and order the petitioner who states that he was a tenant of the bungalow had preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 14 and the landlady had also preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 22/76 before the Assistant Collector Chorasi Prant Surat. Before the Assistant Collector it was pointed out that the petitioner was in possession of the bungalow and therefore there was no question of fixing purchase price with regard to the said premises under sec. 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The Assistant Collector held that in the tenancy proceedings the Court was concerned with the Agricultural land dated 28-8-76 and not with the bungalow. However he confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal fixing the purchase price of the bungalow. Against the said order the petitioner preferred the revision application. That revision application was also dismissed by the Revenue Tribunal without taking into consideration the provisions of the Tenancy Act.