VALI AHMED KOYLA Vs. DAOUD MOHAMMAD ADAM CHAKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Deputy Collector (Tenancy Appeals) at Vadodara on 30/05/1983 in Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 1977 as affirmed in revision by the decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad on 8/04/1986 in Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 1651 of 1983 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, the Deputy Collector upset the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Karjan ('the first authority' for convenience) on 21/09/1976 in Tenancy Case No. 1651 of 1975 holding the present petitioner to be entitled to restoration of three parcels of land bearing Survey Nos. 452, 453/2 and 487/5 admeasuring 3 Acres 9 Gunthas, 1 Acre 1 Guntha and 4 Acres 17 Gunthas situated in village Valan, Taluka Karjan, District Vadodara ('the disputed lands' for convenience) under Sec. 32(1B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Act' for brief).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner made an application under Sec. 32(1B) of the Act to the first authority praying for restoration of possession of the disputed lands on the ground that he cultivated them on the specified date, that is, 15/06/1955. It came to be registered as Tenancy Case No. 1651 of 1975. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, by his order passed on 2 1/09/1976, the first authority held the present petitioner to be in possession of the disputed lands on 15/06/1955 and ordered restoration of their possession to him. Its copy is at Annexure 'A' to this petition. The aggrieved respondents herein carried the matter in appeal before the Deputy Collector (Tenancy Appeals) at Vadodara. Their appeal came to be registered as Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 1977. By his order passed on 30/05/1984 in Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 1977, the Deputy Collector (Tenancy Appeals) at Vadodara accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the first authority at Annexure "A" to this petition. A copy of the appellate order is at Annexure 'B' to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner herein carried the matter in revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad. His revisional application came to be registered as Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 1651 of 1983. By its ex-parte decision rendered of 29/10/1985 in the aforesaid revisional application, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal accepted it and set aside the appellate order at Annexure "B" to this petition and restored the order passed by the first authority at Annexure "A" to this petition. A copy of its decision is at Annexure "C" to this petition. The respondents herein thereupon approached the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad by means of Restoration Application No. TEN.D.A. 176 of 1985 for setting aside its decision at Annexure "C" to this petition and for restoration of the revisional application in question to file. By its decision rendered on 12/12/1985 in the aforesaid restoration application, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad accepted it and set aside its decision at Annexure "C" to this petition and restored the matter to file. A copy of the decision in the aforesaid restoration application is at Annexure "D" to this petition. The present petitioner's revisional application was thereupon heard afresh. By its decision rendered on 8/04/1986 in the aforesaid revisional application, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure "E" to this petition. The petitioner has thereupon invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the legality and validity of the appellate order at Annexure "B" to this petition as affirmed in revision by the decision at Annexure "E" to this petition.

(3.) It appears that the appellate authority decided the case against the present petitioner on the basis of some additional evidence sought to be produced before him with the application made on 17/03/1978. It is at page 37 on the file of the Deputy Collector (Tenancy Appeal) at Vadodara in the proceedings registered as Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 1977. Two pieces of documentary evidence were sought to be produced as additional evidence. One was a certified copy of the application made by the petitioner herein on 13/12/1955 presumably under Sec. 32P of the Act for restoration of possession of the disputed lands taken away from him by the landlords,, that is, the respondents herein. It is at pages 43 to 45 in the proceedings of Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 1977. The finding of fact recorded by the first authority in its order at Annexure "A" to this petition was upset by the appellate authority mainly on the basis of the certified copy of the application purported to have been made by the present petitioner under Sec. 32P of the Act. As aforesaid, that piece of documentary evidence was produced by way of additional evidence.