N.H.BHATT - (1.)This is a petition by the original tenant seeking the fixation of the purchase price under the provisions of sec. 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act 1948 He had filed proceedings before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal of Mandvi District Surat seeking the fixation of the purchase price. The Tribunal by its order dated 5-10-74 proceeded to fix the purchase price as per the order Annexure-A to the petition. In the landlords appeal No. 27/72 before the Assistant Collector of Choryasi Taluka Surat the order of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal came to be set aside as per the order Annexure-B and the Gujarat Reveune Tribunal confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector as per its judgment Annexure-C. The orignel tenant is therefore before this High Court challenging the said order of the Assistant Collector confirmed by the Revenue Tribunal.
(2.)The short ground on which the Assistant Collector and the Reveune Tribunal negatived the request of the petitioner is that on the earlier occasion a similar request made by the tenant had come to be turned down by the competent authority namely the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and the question was concluded for ever under the principles analogous to those of res-judicata. It is this decision that is seriously challenged by the petitioner-tenant by filing the present petition. The earlier order that made the concerned authorities pass the orders Annexures B and C is to be found at Annexure-D. Firstly in the year 1962 the proceedings obviously suo-motu seem to have been initiated and the then Agricultural Lands Tribunal by its order dated 27-4-69 held that as the landlord was suffering from physical disability the sale stood postponed. The tenant had again revived his request in the year 1972 and the Tribunal again passed the order on 27-7-1971 after hearing both the parties-it is so assumed because they are noted to have been present-that the sale was postponed and consequently no price could be fixed.
(3.)Mr. Zaveri the learned Advocate for the petitioner reiterate that the tenants grievance that was essential was not the physical disability of the landlord at any time but the pointed question that should have been raised and answered by the authorities on the earlier occasions was whether such a disability was there on the tillers day namely 1 Mr. Zaveri has taken me through the two earlier orders at Annexure-D and showed that on neither of the occasions the concerned A.L.T. had addressed itself to this pointed question which was the moot question for the purpose of decision. He therefore urged that both the authorities below namely the Assistant Collector and the Revenue Tribunal had committed a gross error of law in invoking the principles of res-judicata or principles analogous to these of resjudicata which admittedly apply though statutorily not applicable.