Back
1966 Supreme(Guj) 103
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :N.M.MIABHOY, N.K.VAKIL
BAPUBHAI LUNVIR - Appellant
Versus
R.B.MEHTA,president,guj.REVENUE TRIBUNAL - Respondent
S.C.A. 472 of 1962
Decided On : 09/15/1966
Headnote:
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 –sec. 32g , 74 , 15, 5, 7, 12, 32, 63 –Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act 1960 –tenant issue – The tenants appeared before the Lands Tribunal and expressed willingness to purchase the land – However there was a dispute between the landlord and the tenants regarding the tenants actual status –the tenants contended that they were permanent tenants whereas the landlord contended that they were only protected tenants – It came to the conclusion that the tenants were only protected tenants –the tenants felt aggrieved and they preferred separate appeals to the Collector –He came to the conclusion that the tenants had not been given a proper opportunity to prove their case that they were permanent tenants– The tenants also challenged the order of the Lands Tribunal declaring certain areas to be surplus land in their hands –By the judgment aforesaid the Revenue Tribunal came to the conclusion that an appeal lay to the Collector from the aforesaid part of the order of the Lands Tribunal by which it had held that the tenants were holding excess area and reversed the finding of the Collector on that subject –The landlord has filed the present writ petitions for challenging both the aforesaid decisions recorded by the Revenue Tribunal – Held, Non-obstante clause in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 6 of the Ceiling Act does not help the construction for which the tenants contend – As the main clause relates only to the holding of land and is not intended to confer a right of ownership of land which did not belong to a holder on the appointed day it is obvious that the non-obstante clause which nullifies the previous law must necessarily refer to a law which has reference to the holding of land on the appointed day and not to any law which has already conferred rights of ownership on one or other party – Petitions deserve to be allowed in part – Court quash and set aside that part of the order of the Revenue Tribunal which directs that the Lands Tribunal shall consider the question as to which area of land each respective tenant was deemed to be a purchaser – Court hold that the determination of the Lands Tribunal about the question of the land of which the tenants become deemed purchasers with reference to the Tenancy Act was correct and does not require to be altered on account of the coming into effect of the Ceiling Act –Subject to this the rest of the order passed by the Collector remanding the question about the status of the tenants as to whether they are permanent or protected tenants stands and the Lands Tribunal will proceed to determine that question and the other related questions in accordance with law – As success is divided each party will bear its own costs –Petitions Partly Allowed
( 1 ) PETITIONER Bapubhai Lunvir first filed Special Civil Application No. 472 of 1962 against ten respondents. The first respondent is the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereafter called the Revenue Tribunal ). The second respondent is the State of Gujarat. Respondents Nos. 3 to 10 were at the material time the tenants of petitioner. Subsequently petitioner filed Special Civil Applications Nos. 618 to 624 of 1962 one against each of respondents Nos. 4 to 10 and joining the first two respondents also in each of those petitions as respondents Nos. 1 and 2. As a result of the filing of the eight writ petitions petitioner has not paid the process fee for service on respondents Nos. 4 to 10 in the first writ petition. Therefore the names of respondents Nos. 4 to 10 will have to be struck off in Special Civil Application No. 472 of 1962. The result is that we have now a group of eight petitions in which petitioner Bapubhai Lunvir is the common petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the first writ petition will also figure as common respondents in the rest of the petitions. Each of respondents Nos. 4 to 10 figures as respondent No. 3 in each of the aforesaid other petitions respectively. All these petitions arise from a common order passed by the Revenue Tribunal on 23rd April 1962 The facts of each of the petitions are similar and the questions of law which arise for determination in all the petitions are the same. Therefore with the consent of learned advocates on both sides we have heard a common argument and this common judgment will dispose of all the eight petitions.
( 2 ) PETITIONER was the owner before 1st April 1957 of lands situated in the village Dungri Taluk Mithapur District Amreli. Respondent No. 3 in each of the petitions was a tenant of petitioner in respect of some of those lands. Petitioner will be described as the landlord and all respondants Nos. 3 in all the petitions will be described as tenants in the rest of this judgment. After 1st April 1957 (hereafter called the tillers day) the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (hereafter called the Lands Tribunal) issued notices to the landlord and tenants under sec. 32g of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 hereafter called the Tenancy Act ). The tenants appeared before the Lands Tribunal and expressed willingness to purchase the lands deemed to have been purchased by them under sec. 32 of the Tenancy Act. However there was a dispute between the landlord and the tenants regarding the tenants actual status. The tenants contended that they were permanent tenants whereas the landlord contended that they were only protected tenants. Before the Lands Tribunal a question also arose about the quantum of the lands which the tenants were to be deemed to have purchased. The Lands Tribunal entered into a determination of both those questions. It came to the conclusion that the tenants were only protected tenants. It also came to the conclusion that the tenants were holding lands on the tillers day more than the ceiling area prescribed by the Tenancy Act and therefore each of them was in possession of surplus land which he was not entitled to purchase and which land was to be disposed of as directed in sec. 321t of the Tenancy Act. After determining the aforesaid two questions the Lands Tribunal addressed itself to the question of determination of the purchase price of the land and fixed the same. A common order was passed by the Lands Tribunal on 5th June 1960 incorporating all the aforesaid decisions. The landlord acquiesced in the order of the Lands Tribunal but the tenants felt aggrieved and they preferred separate appeals under sec. 74 of the Tenancy Act to the Collector. The Collector recorded his findings on 31st December 1960. He came to the conclusion that the tenants had not been given a proper opportunity to prove their case that they were permanent tenants and therefore the cases of tenants required to be remanded for determination
