- (1.) The challenge in the present petition is directed against judgment and order dated 26th March, 1997 of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN-BS-45/1992 which was preferred by the present petitioners. The Tribunal dismissed the Revision, consequentially confirmed order dated 18th February, 1991 of Mamlatdar & Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT), Chikhli in Tenancy Case No.32(1B) as well as the order dated 24th February, 1992 of Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal No.30 of 1991 arising therefrom. 1.1 The Mamlatdar in its aforesaid order dated 18th February, 1991 held that the respondents hereinthe heirs of the original tenant-were entitled to be handed over back the possession of the land in question as according to the Mamlatdar & ALT, they were wrongly dispossessed prior to 03rd March, 1973. In other words, tenancy rights were conferred on the respondent-heirs and it was directed to put them in possession of the land in question. The Tenancy Appeal before the Deputy Collector was dismissed, whereafter was the impugned order by the Revenue Tribunal.
(2.) The controversy pertains to the rights claimed by the petitioners, refuted and counterclaimed by the private respondents herein under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 in respect of land bearing Block No.119, Survey No.80/1- 2-3 admeasuring 61 Are and 71 Sq. Meters at Village Vanjana, Taluka Chikhli, District Valsad. The case has a chequered history.
(3.) Tracing the attendant facts from the record of the petition, the impugned order is the end-result of the third round of litigation in the same subject matter. The background litigation may be referred to and summarized with relevance as under. 3.1 As back as in the year 1960, respondent No.3 Mamlatdar & ALT, Chikhli, District Valsad initiated Inquiry Case No.837 under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and a public notice under Section 32G of the Act came to be issued. By order dated 29th February, 1960, the said competent authority closed the proceedings, recording a finding and holding that the applicanttenant Bhaga Kara was not in possession on the tiller's day, that is on 01st April, 1957, resultantly no rights were claimable or conferrable on him as tenant under the Tenancy Act, 1948. In the proceedings, the competent authority had examined the said Bhaga Kara who in the statement on 05th January, 1960 in terms stated that he was not in possession, nor was cultivating the land since last 10 years. It was further accepted by him that on 01st April, 1957 he was not in possession and the land was surrendered voluntarily. It was admitted that he never claimed nor cultivated the land since voluntarily surrendering thereof. 3.2 It appears that after gap of almost 18 years, on behalf of said Bhagabhai Karabhai filed another Tenancy Case No.3110 of 1977 before the Mamlatdar & ALT, invoking Section 32(1B). It further appears that in the said proceedings on 14th March, 1978 the parties remained present and the son of said Bhagabhai stated that his father has died, further stated that though they were not tenants, since they were used to go for labour work, their names appeared in the record. The previous proceedings of the year 1960 were also referred to and Entry No.2805 in that regard was produced. The competent authority concluded that applicants were not tenant in respect of the land in question. The said inquiry was also closed by passing order dated 14th March, 1978. The copies of the aforesaid orders and the statement by the tenant recorded for his admission and surrendering of possession are on record of the petition; 3.3 It appears that after the aforesaid closure of the second inquiry, the heirs of the deceased Bhagabhai once again sought to initiate proceedings under Section 32(1B) of the Act in form of Tenancy Case No.973 of 1983. By order dated 24th November, 1983 the proceedings were dropped by the competent authority holding that the applicants-opponents were not the tenants and they were never in possession so as to attract Section 32(1B). It appears that Deputy Collector invoked for himself suo motu powers under Section 76A of the Act by means of Appeal No.1412 of 1984 and by passing order dated 20th December, 1988 in such exercise of powers, remanded the case to the Mamlatdar & ALT for deciding it afresh. The Mamlatdar & ALT acting upon remand passed order dated 18th February, 1991 to hold and direct that the petitioners were required to return the possession of the land to the respondents herein-tenants. The said order resulted to the impugned order of the Revenue Tribunal in the Revision.;