- (1.)The short facts of the case are the petitioners are claiming the tenancy rights over the land in question admeasuring 4 acres 13 gunthas bearing S.Mo.369 at village Khanva taluka Jambusar and the land admeasuring 1 acre 20 gunthas bearing S.No.371 at village Khanva,tal.Jambusar. Since common questions arise both these petitions are considered by this common judgment.
(2.)It appears that the father of the petitioner was the tenant of lands in question and as per the say of the petitioner after the death of the father of the petitioner the petitioner continued with the possession over the land in question. As per the respondent landlord the tenancy rights were surrendered on 26.5.1950 and the same was before Aval Karkun who was the then competent authority and as per the order, dated 3.7.1950 such surrender was recorded as voluntary and the tenancy rights were terminated. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has continued to be in possession of the land in question whereas it is the case of the respondent landlord that after surrendering tenancy the village Form 7 and 12 shows the cultivation by the respondent landlord.
(3.)It appears that the petitioners preferred Civil Suit No.868/81 in the court of Civil Judge (JD) at Jambusar for protecting the possession and in the said suit it was contended by the petitioners herein interalia that there is tenancy right over the land in question. The claim of the petitioner was denied by the landlord and therefore the civil court had to decide the question in respect of the rights of the petitioners herein as tenants. It appears that the reference is made to the competent authority under Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act), i.e. Mamalatdar & ALT who ultimately registered the case as Tenancy Case No.4/82 and on 24.6.1982 the Mamalatdar & ALT passed order whereby it has been observed that the plaintiff has proved the possession and it has been further found that the proper procedure for surrendering of tenancy rights is not followed and therefore it is declared that the tenancy of the petitioners is not terminated and the petitioners continue as the tenants of the land in question. It appears that the appeal was preferred against the order of the Mamalatdar before the Dy.Collector being Tenancy Appeal No.9/82 and the said appeal came to be allowed as per order, dated 10.5.1983. The matter was further carried in revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and as per the judgment, dated 9.11.1983 in Revision No.953/83 the matter was remanded to the Dy.Collector for fresh hearing of the appeal. It appears that thereafter the Dy.Collector passed the order on 13/20.1.1984 whereby he held that the claim of petitioner as tenant is raised after 30 years and no proper evidence is produced and that the tenancy was voluntarily surrendered and the petitioner is not the tenant of the land in question. It appears that the matter was, once again, carried before the Revenue Tribunal by preferring revision by the petitioner being Revision No.294/84 and 295/84. The tribunal confirmed the order of the Dy.Collector and did not find case for interference and the revisions were dismissed. It appears that the matters were carried before this court by preferring Special Civil Application Nos 6197 and 6198/84 by the petitioners and as per order dated 22.1.1985 passed by this court, the orders passed by the Dy.Collector as well as by the Gujarat Revenue tribunal were quashed and the matters were remanded to the tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law considering the oral and documentary evidence. It may be recorded that the aforesaid order, dated 22.1.1985 came to be passed by this court upon the consent of both the parties. It appears that thereafter the Asst.Collector considered the matter and passed the order on 30.4.1985 whereby it has been held that the possession is of the petitioner and proper procedure for surrendering the tenancy is not followed and the surrendering of tenancy is illegal and it is observed that the petitioner is the tenant of the land and ultimately the order passed by the Mamalatdar is confirmed. It appears that the matters were carried before the revenue tribunal in revision by the landlord by preferring revision application Nos 468 and 483/85. The tribunal has found that surrendering of the tenancy is in the year 1950 and therefore the provisions of amendment made in the year 1956 would not be applicable and the only procedure which was required to be followed was as per the Rule 2A of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") and no elaborate formalities were required to be followed while surrendering the tenancy rights. The tribunal further found that the surrendering of the tenancy was legal and proper and the Mamalatdar in the subsequent proceedings should not have reviewed the earlier decision and the tribunal also recorded that as the position of law is clear. The tribunal observed that other evidence, oral as well as documentary, presented by the two parties before the Mamalatdar was not required to be considered and ultimately the tribunal has allowed the revision and declared that the petitioner was not a tenant in respect of the disputed land. It is, under these circumstances, the petitioners have preferred these petitions before this court.