- (1.) This petition has arisen under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1948) and dispute pertains to the land bearing Survey Nos. 843/1, 844 and 621/ 1 situated at Moje Sathal, Tal. Dholka.
(2.) The petitioners are the legal heirs and representatives of deceased Mangaji Dhulaji Thakore, who was the tenant as per their case, of these lands. The petitioners submitted an application to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and Mamlatdar, Dholka, under S.32G of the Act, 1948, for declaration that they have become the deemed purchasers of the said lands and to fix the purchase price. After notice to the respondents - land owners, the A.L.T. and Mamlatdar, Dholka, vide its order dated 21st January, 1979 decided the matter in favour of the petitioners and they have been declared to be deemed purchasers and fixed the purchase price of the said lands. The respondents preferred an appeal against the said order before the Dy. Collector (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The Dy. Collector under its order dated 23rd August, 1979, remanded the matter back to the A.L.T. and Mamlatdar, Dholka. The petitioners being aggrieved of the said order of remand made by the appellate authority preferred a revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad, but the same came to be dismissed under the order dated 24th August, 1980. After remand, the A.L.T. and Mamlatdar, Dholka, under its order dated 19th May, 1981, held that the petitioners have become deemed purchasers of the lands in question on 3-3-1973 and fixed the purchase price at Rs. 5,678.00. The respondents feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order preferred an appeal before the Dy. Collector (Appeals), Ahmedabad, which came to be allowed under the order dated 6-2-1982. The petitioners preferred a revision application against the said order of the appellate authority before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad and the Tribunal under its order dated 20th September, 1983, dismissed the said application. Hence, this Special Civil Application.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the correctness and the legality of the orders of the appellate authority and the Tribunal contended that both the authorities have committed a serious error apparent on the face of the order in holding that the previous proceedings initiated by the A.L.T. and Mamlatdar, Dholka, under S.32-G of the Act, 1948, is res-judicata, and as such, the petitioners cannot raise and agitate the same point again. It has next been contended that though the proceedings have been initiated under S.32-G of the Act, 1948, but still the A.L.T. and Mamlatdar, Dholka, could have gone into the question of the benefits to be given to the petitioners under S.32(1B) of the Act, 1948. Admittedly, the predecessorin- title of the petitioners was in possession of the land, as it transpires from the revenue record, upto 1955-56, and as such, the provisions of S.32(1B) of the Act, 1948, are attracted in the present case. In the proceedings which have been started on the application of a tenant under S.32-G of the Act, 1948, the revenue authorities could have also proceeded under S.32(1B) of the said Act. It has next been contended that a contradictory plea has been by the respondents. Before the Dy. Collector, and A.L.T. and Mamlatdar, Dholka, the respondents have come up with a case that they were cultivating the said lands from 1951 whereas before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal it has been pleaded by them that they are cultivating the lands personally from 1956. It has been admitted by the respondent No. 1 in the present proceedings that they are getting these lands in dispute cultivated by making a cash payment as labour charges to Shri Mangaji Dhulaji and after his demise to Shri Manibhai Mangabhai and Nagarbhai Mangabhai since 1951. So from these facts, it has come out that after the death of Mangaji Dhulaji, his heirs were cultivating the said lands. To buttress this contention, the Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that after 1951 the entries continue in the name of the tenant and the entries subsequent to 1951 have not been challenged by the respondents at any stage. Another contention has been made that in the revenue record, the predecessor of the petitioners Shri Mangaji Dhulaji Thakore was entered in the revenue record as protected permanent tenant and the same continued till the year 1955-56, but after 1955-56, the name of Mangaji Dhulaji Thakore was deleted from the revenue record without any legal, valid and lawful order passed by the authority under the Tenancy Act. So, deletion of the name of the tenant is null and void. Shri Mangaji Dhulaji Thakore in all circumstances was in possession of the lands on 15-6-1955 and after that date, the name of permanent tenant cannot be deleted or the tenancy of the permanent tenant cannot be terminated without obtaining the orders of the competent authority under the Act, 1948. Lastly, the Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Dy. Collector and the Revenue Tribunal have committed serious illegality in placing reliance upon the entry made in the revenue record of the inheritance after the death of Mangaji Dhulaji Thakore. The Counsel for the petitioners contended that the name of deceased Mangaji Dhulaji was deleted from the revenue record after the year 1956 and therefore, the said entry of inheritance does not include the land in question and the same cannot be utilised against the petitioners.;