PRAVINBHAI S PANCHAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by way of this petition has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Collector at Annexure B, whereby the order of the Mamlatdar for lifting the restriction under section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act (hereinafter referred to as the act ) is set-aside and petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Revenue-Tribunal whereby revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of petitioner has aggrieved party to the procedure.

(2.) THE short facts appears to be that for the agricultural land bearing survey No. 1570/2 admeasuring 1 gunthas, proceedings under the Act were initiated. Ultimately, vide order dated 14.8.91, Mamlatdar found that there are no restrictions under section 43 of the Act. The Deputy Collector against the said order of the Mamlatdar took up the matter in appeal under section 76(a) and vide order dated 26.11.93, he found that the order of the Mamlatdar was illegal because the land was already sold by the original owner to the third party and he directed the Mamlatdar to take the steps. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred revision application before the Revenue-Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 11.9.94, dismissed the revision on the ground that the petitioner could not be said to be aggrieved party. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

(3.) IT is undisputed position that the petitioners are the persons who had purchased the land in question after the order came to be passed by the Mamlatdar on 14.8.91. Tribunal found that petitioners could not be said to be aggrieved party. In fact, when rights in the property as per the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, are acquired by the petitioner, if premium was to be recovered and if not paid, it would be from land itself. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the purchaser of the property could not be said to be not aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Collector and the same is coupled with the circumstances that it came on record that the original owner had sold the property. Therefore, in order to pass the effective order, it was necessary for the Deputy Collector to issue notice to the purchaser. In any case, if no notice was not issued and hearing was not given, the purchaser of the property, who are the petitioners herein can be said as aggrieved party by the order in appeal passed by the Deputy Collector. The approach on the part of the Tribunal for treating that the petitioner herein is not aggrieved by the order, cannot be accepted. One who is affected by the order, may carry the matter before the higher forum, because it was admitted position that the purchaser had purchased the property and further additional construction was made in the property. Under this circumstances, it appears that the order passed by the Tribunal for dismissing the revision, which is on the ground of non-maintainability, could not be said as valid in the eye of law. Hence, order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside and matter would be required to be re-heared by the Tribunal on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides.