SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Guj) 12

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :S.B.MAJMUDAR
RASULMIYA REHMANMIYA - Appellant
Versus
PATEL LALBHAI SHANKERBHAI - Respondent
S.CRI.A. 1164 of 1978
Decided On : 01/21/1983

Advocates Appeared: A.G.MOMIN, J.M.PATEL, N.J.SHELAT

Headnote:

Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 - sec. 32 - Articles 226 and 227 - Tenants - Ground of limitation - Possession of agricultural lands - Tenancy Act and that said land is still in possession of respondent landlord - Said application was entertained on merits by and after hearing parties and permitting them to lead their evidence in respect of respective contentions Agricultural Lands Tribunal by its order to conclusion that petitioner had made out case under section 32 (1b) of Tenancy Act for restoration of possession and accordingly his application W4b granted – In order to appreciate aforesaid grievance of petitioner it is necessary to have a look at section 32 (1b) of Tenancy Act which reads as under 32 (1b) Where a tenant who was in possession of land on appointed day and who on account of his being dispossessed of such land or any part thereof by landlord at any time before specified otherwise than in manner provided in section 29 or any other provision – Held, respondent land lord submitted that only point of limitation was canvassed before Tribunal in support of respondents revision application because said legal position was well accepted at tribunals level in those days - Says that even up till now tribunal has been consistently taking same view - Once this Court takes a contrary view on question of limitation an opportunity should be given to respondent to argue their revision application on merits before the tribunal - Said request of for respondent is well justified - It is true that only points of limitation was urged before Tribunal and as Tribunal accepted that contention of respondent naturally had no occasion to address Tribunal on merits of case - Consequently proceedings will have to be remanded to Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits - In result this petition is allowed - Rule issued is made absolute - It is held that 32 (1b) proceedings as conducted before - Petition allowed

S. B. MAJMUDAR, J.

( 1 ) IN this Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in revision application No. TEN. B. A. 1020 of 1977 where by the Revenue Tribunal has allowed the Revision Application of the respondent landlord and has dismissed the petitioners application under sec. 32 (1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) only on the ground of limitation. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties centering round the question of limitation it is necessary to note a few relevant facts. The dispute centers round the possession of agricultural lands bearing survey No. 264 admeasuring 1 acre and 10 gunthas situated on the outskirts of village Rasulpur Padal in Thasra taluka of Kheda district. The petitioner claims to be the lawful tenant thereof and respondent is admittedly the owner thereof. Case of the petitioner is that he was in lawful possession and cultivation of the said land as a tenant of the landlord upto 1959 and that the respondent is alleged to have snatched away the possession of the petitioner without following due procedure of law. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner applied to the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal Thasra under sec. 32 (1b) of the Bombay Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act on 17-2-1976 for restoration of possession on the ground that he was the lawful tenant of the suit land. He was in possession thereof on the appointed day that is on 15/06/1955 and was dispossessed of the said land by the respondent landlord before the specified date that is the date on which the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural (Gujarat Amendment) Act 1972 came into force and the said dispossession was done without following the due procedure of the Tenancy Act and that the said land is still in possession of the respondent landlord. The said application was entertained on merits by the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. Thasra and after hearing the parties and permitting them to lead their evidence in respect of the respective contentions the Agricultural Lands Tribunal Thasra by its order dated 15/07/1976 came to the conclusion that the petitioner had made out the case under sec. 32 (1b) of the Tenancy Act for restoration of possession and accordingly his application W4b granted.

( 2 ) THE respondent land lord carried the matter in appeal being tenancy appeal No. 170 of 1976 before the Deputy Collector Anand and in the said appeal a contention was raised that as per the provisions of the Tenancy Act an application can be filed by the aggrieved party within one year of the coming into operation of sec. 32 (1b) and hence the application as filed by the petitioner on 17/02/1976 was clearly time barred. The Deputy Collector Anand took the view that as the A. L. T. and Mamlatdar did not reject the application on the ground of limitation the Mamlatdar could be treated to have exercised his suo motu powers under sec. 32 (1b) and consequenty the question of limitation did not arise. On the facts of this case the Deputy Collector confirmed the findings of the Mamlatdar on merits. Thereafter the respondent land lord carried the matter by way of revision to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal under sec. 76 of the Tenancy Act. The only ground that was urged before the Tribunal was that of Limitation. The Tribunal accepted the said contention of the advocate on behalf of the respondent and held that the petitioner was required to file his application under sec. 32 (1b) of the Tenancy Act latest by 3 as the period of limitation for such application was prescribed by rule 15 A of the Bombay Tenancy And Agricultural Land Rules 1956 to be one year from the date on which the amending act came into force. That the said act had come into force on 3-3-1973 and hence the application as filed by the petitioner on 17-2-76 was barred by limitation. That










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top