Decided on May 06,1966



A.R.BAKSHI, N.M.MIABHOY - (1.)Petitioner Natha Mohan has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction or order for quashing or setting aside certain orders to be presently mentioned.
(2.)The facts which require to be mentioned to dispose off the peittion may at first be stated. We are concerned in the present petition with a land bearing survey No. 164 situated in the village Nana Ankadia Amreli District. Bai Shanta respondent No. 1 was at the relevant time the occupant of this land and Harjivandas respondent No. 2 was its tenant. On 31st December 1956 respondent No. 1 sold by a registered sale deed that land to respondent No. 2 for Rs. 3 0 However on the same day respondent No. 2 sold by another registered document the same land to petitioner for Rs. 6 500 The Talati of the village prepared case papers in regard to these two sale transactions and submitted them to the Tenancy Mahalkari respondent No. 4 for passing the necessary orders in view of the fact that both the sale transactions had taken place without undergoing the procedure required by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereafter called the Act ) for obtaining the requisite permission thereunder. On 19th April 1959 respondent No. 4 passed an order in regard to the sale transactions. In regard to the sale by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2 (hereafter called the first sale ) respondent No. 4 ordered that respondent No. 2 shall pay penalty of Re. 1/to the State Government within a period of one month for validation of sale of Survey No. 164 of Nana Ankadia under sec. 64 of the Act read with sec. 84C as modified on 17th July 1958. In regard to second sale respondent No. 4 made a declaration that that sale was invalid. He further ordered that the land shall vest in the State Government that the amount of Rs. 6 500 shall stand forfeited to the State Government and that the land be given on new and impartible tenure in the prescribed manner after payment of the reasonable price which was determined by him under sec. 63A. Petitioner filed an appeal to the Prant Officer from the above order. The latter is respondent No. 5. That officer modified respondent No. 4s above order. He set aside that part of the order which forfeited the amount of consideration of Rs. 6 500 and confirmed the rest of the order. Petitioner then filed a revision application to the Revenue Tribunal represented in this Court by respondent No. 3. On 22nd September 1961 the Tribunal dismissed the revision application and confirmed the order of respondent No. 4 as modified by respondent No. 5. In the present petition petitioner challenges the validity of the aforesaid three orders passed by respondents Nos. 4 5 and 3 respectively. The Revenue Tribunal has ultimately upheld the orders of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 on the ground that the second sale was bad under sec. 43 of the Act.
(3.)Mr. Shah the learned advocate for petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 22nd September 1961 on the ground that the Revenue Tribunal had committed an error apparent on the face of the record by holding that the second sale was hit by the provision contained in sec. 43 aforesaid.

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