Decided on November 06,1979

STATE Respondents


N.H.BHATT - (1.) This is a petition by one citizen challenging the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the revision application before that Tribunal registered as TEN. B.A. no. 300 of 1974 filed by him which came to be rejected and the common order of the Tribunal in the respondents revision application no. TEN. B.A. No. 415 of 1974 which was allowed by the Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunals order is Annexure E to the petition.
(2.) A few facts need to be clearly stated. There are situated in the sim of village Kanbha Taluka Daskroi of Ahmedabad District six pieces of agricultural lands. They are S. Nos. 339/1 342 343 34316 351 and 351/1 respectively admeasuring 2 acres one guntha 11 gunthas 19 guntbas 14 gunthas 20 gunthas and 2 acres and 16 gunthas all told admeasuring 6 acres and 1 guntha. These lands belonged to one Ichhaben the respondent no. 2 to this petition. The respondent no. 3/4 Magaji Kalaji who was in the record of rights as the tenant of the land had surrendered his tenancy rights of these lands in favour of the landlady by recourse to sec. 15 of the Bombay Tenancy Act hereinafter referred to as the Act. The said proceedings had come to be registered by the Mamlatdar and intimation no. 336 of 1960 dated 30-8-60 was given to the Village Officer. It is however a common ground that these surrender proceedings had been effected in the year 1956 but the mutation entry Annexure A came to be made on 12-9-60 pursuant to the intimation of the Mamlatdar dated 30-8-60. Said Magaji was the heir of one Kaluji Dhulaji. Said Kaluji had his widow Bai Jivi who was initially the party to the proceedings before the Mamlatdar in her capacity as the widow of Kalaji and she also claimed to be the guardian of her two minor sons Babaji and Hathaji. In the year 1962 above mentioned Bai Jivi had filed an application acting for herself and for her two minor sons before the Mamlatdar against Bai Ichha claiming possession of the lands from Bai Ichha under sec. 29(1) of the Act alleging that her husband and father of the two minors Babaji and Hathaji was the tenant and said Kalaji having died leaving behind hum Mangaji Babaji Hathaji and Bai Jivi as his heirs the tenancy rights had devolved on all of them jointly. That application filed by said Jivi had come to be rejected by the Mamlatdar on 20-3-63 as per his order Annexure B. The Mamlatdar rejected the application on the ground that Mangaji Kalaji alone was the tenant and that the application was even time-barred. Thus the judgment Annexure B was on merits also. The said order which was to the prejudice of Bai Jivi and her two minor sons was taken lying down by her. The landlady Ichhaben then sold these lands on 28-8-63 to the present petitioner Rabari Babaji Mahiji. After about five years of the said sale taken by this petitioner the Mamlatdar started suo motu proceedings under sec. 84 C of the Act because it appeared to him prima facie that the sale-deed executed by Bai Ichha in favour of the petitioner was invalid. The mamlatdar had declared the sale valid and so Bai Jivi had preferred the appeal no. 240 of 1969 before the appellant authority who was pleased to remand the matter to the Mamlatdar by his order dated 16-5-69. Against the order of remand this landlady Bai Ichha filed revision application no TEN A. 1574 of 1969 before the Revenue Tribunal which had also confirmed the order of remand with certain elaborations. The Revenue Tribunal had directed the Agricultural Lands Tribunal to give its finding on the following three issues :- (1) Whether deceased Bai Ichha had the right and authority to transfer or sell the lands in question to Babaji Mahiji Rabari as alleged ? (2) Whether the sale or transfer effected in favour of Mahiji Rabari in respect of the land in question is invalid as alleged (3) Whether the opponents-tenants have the right and interest to challenge the said transaction.
(3.) After the remand the Mamlatdar by his order Annexure C dated 25-5-73 declared the sale invalid on the ground that Bai Ichha got surrender of the land from Mangaji only for the purpose of personal cultivation and she could not therefore sell the land.;

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