P. N. BHAGWATI, N. K. VAKIL, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a group of 12 Special Civil Applications Nos. 88 to 99 of 1964 wherein facts are similar and common questions of law are raised and will all be dealt with and disposed of by this common judgment. All the petitioners in this group of petitions are Ex-Inamdars of Khandoli village in Kalol Taluka of District Panch Mahals. The Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act 1952 was applied to this inam village in 1955. But before that Record of Rights was prepared and was promulgated on the 29th April 1954. It is the case of the petitioners that a large number of tenants of the petitioners were arbitrarily shown as permanent tenants in the said record of rights even though they could not be held to be permanent tenants within the meaning of the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the 12 tenants who are opponents Nos. 1 in the respective petitions before us were also entered as permanent tenants in the said record of rights. On behalf of the petitioners this entry made in the record of rights was challenged by an application dated the 30th of July 1954. This application was addressed to the Mamlatdar but it was filed before the Extra Aval Karkun. By the said application the petitioners tried to contend that the 167 tenants of theirs including these 12 tenants were not permanent tenants and the entry noting them as permanent tenants was wrong and incorrect. This application however was not disposed of till the 28th of December 1958 and on that day the Aval Karkun decided after going through the merits of the case that the tenants were not permanent tenants as the starting point of the tenancy of each of the tenants could be determined and that neither of these tenants was a mulganidar or a mirasdar nor any of them was holding the land on a permanent basis by the orders of any competent Court. It was further held that none of the tenants was registered as a permanent tenant in any record recognised by the Government. He therefore ordered that the tenants should be shown in the record of rights not as permanent tenants but as tenants of other categories. No appeal was filed against this order of the Aval Karkun but it appears that some miscellaneous applications were filed by some of the tenants to the Mamlatdar Kalol and the Mamlatdar appears to have referred the matter to the Collector and the Collector in his turn had referred the matter to the Commissioner Baroda Division. The Commissioner Baroda Division. without going into the merits of the case set aside the order of the Aval Karkun purporting to act under his revisional jurisdiction under rule 108 (6) of the rules framed under the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). The Commissioner passed his first order in respect to it on the 5 of September 1961. He not only annulled the order of the Aval Karkun but further directed that the Mamlatdar Kalol should decide the dispute under sec. 5 of the Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act 1952 read with sec. 6 of the Bombay Land Tenure Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act 57 of 1958 as the village in which the lands were situated was Ex-personal inam village. Thereafter the Commissioner by his another order of the 17th February 1962 which purport to substitute the prior order that he had Passed further directed that the aggrieved parties may approach proper Court or may take recourse to available remedy if so advised. It is the case of the petitioners that the said order was passed by the Commissioner in compliance with the instructions issued by the Government of Bombay by their Circular dated the 9tb September 1957 whereby the Government had directed that if any party challenged the entries in the record op rights pertaining to the status of the tenant such party should be directed do apply to the Mamlatdar under sec. 71 read with sec. 70 (b) of the Tenancy Act for determining tenancy rights. By the said circular the Government had taken the view that it would be open to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document