Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :M.R.CALLA
MUSAMIYA IMAM HAIDERBUX RAZVI - Appellant
Versus
NATVERLAL CHUNILAL patel - Respondent
S.C.A. 434 of 1983
Decided On : 03/04/1998
This Court thus held that the impugned order had been passed in disregard of the relevant provisions of law, as also in violation of the principles of natural justice and thus, the order passed by the Revenue Department was quashed and set aside and the Rule was made absolute. Thus, the Entry No. 286 made in favour of the present respondent was retained and the order which had been passed by the Revenue Department holding that the transaction was invalid in the context of Sec. 27 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, was quashed and set aside. The present petitioner was a party to this decision, but he had not challenged this decision further and this order dated 3rd March, 1976, passed in Special Civil Application No. 1450 of 1971 attained finality and is binding between the parties. Now, it is not at all open and is too late in the day, for the present petitioner to say that the respondent is not entitled to the fruits of this order which had been passed by this Court in presence of both the sides.
[Para 18]
(b) Inams Abolition Act, 1969 - Sec. 2(g) - Terms `otherwise & `inferior holder - Terms defined in consonance with the definition given in section & other term used thereunder.
The term `otherwise as has been mentioned in the definition clause of Sec. 2(9) of the Inams Abolition Act is a term of wide import. Even if it is considered that the term `otherwise has to be construed with the aid of the prinple of ejusdem generis and this term `otherwise has to be given a meaning in the context of the earlier terms of `inheritance or `succession or `valid transfer under the Tenancy law, it has to be agreed on all hands that a person may be in possession in a way other than these three terms as is clear from the words in Sec. 2(9) which qualifies the holders possession otherwise.
[Para 20]
The essential condition for any person to be an inferior holder under the Inams Abolition Act is to possess and hold the land and be liable to pay the assessment in cash or kind. Both these requirements, in the opinion of this Court, are co-existing in favour of the respondent and, therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that, neither it was necessary to have decided the question with regard to Bai Marium being a permanent tenant under the provisions of the Tenancy Act as a pre-condition or a pre- requisite and it was not at all essential to have taken such a decision before embarking upon the claim of the respondent as a inferior holder and further that the authorised officer has rightly held the respondent to be an inferior holder under Sec. 2 (9) of the Inams Abolition Act, 1969 and the order to that effect which has been passed by the Deputy Collector, Devasthan Inams, on 26th October, 1981 does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever and such order dated 26th October, 1981 has been rightly upheld by the Special Secretary on the 6th November, 1982.
[Para 20]
(c) Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 226 and 227 - Claim of petitioner over land in question - Allegation of that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to have his name entered in the revenue record - Issue of entitlement decided in favour of respondent No. 1 - Appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed being time bared - Revision was also dismissed by the Revenue Tribunal on the ground that the impugned order has been passed after considering the provisions of Inams Abolition Act - Interference - Held, having considered the impugned orders which are rightly passed by the concerned authorities, do not warrant any interference.
The Deputy Collector came to the conclusion that the appeal was time-barred and there is no reason to condone the delay and in view of the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Devasthan Inams, no interference whatsoever was warranted with the order dated 21.2.1982 passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and Mamlatdar. Not only this, thereafter the matter was taken in revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, and the Tribunal also passed a detailed order and came to the conclusion that the decision had been taken with regard to the possession under the Inams Abolition Act and after considering the matters in detail on the question of limitation as well as on merits, the Tribunal has passed an elaborate order supported by reasons and has held that nothing more was required to be done by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal in view of the orders passed under Inams Abolition Act. I, too, have considered all the submissions and having gone through the contents of the orders dated 21.2.1982, 8.9.1987 and 9th June, 1994, find that the order dated 21.2.1982 has been rightly upheld by the Deputy Collector as well as the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. Thus, the question No. 2 is also answered against the petitioner.
[Para 24]
( 1 ) ALL these six Special Civil Applications have been filed by one Shri Musamiya Imamhadar Bax Razvi, claiming to be Sajjad-a-Nashin and sole Managing Trustee of Sahe-a-Alam Roja Public Religious Trust. Special Civil Application No. 434 of 1983 is in relation to agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 293, 295, 296 and 297, situated at village Isanpur, Ahmedabad, whereas Special Civil Application No. 13973 of 1994 is in relation to Survey Nos. 293, 294, 296 and 297 of village Isanpur, Ahmedabad. The other four Special Civil applications, i. e. , Special Civil Application Nos. 1611 to 1614 of 1983 are in relation to the lands bearing Survey No. 293, admeasuring 2 acres-09 gunthas, land bearing survey Nos. 60 to 67 and 42, in all. 9 Survey Numbers, situated at village Isanpur, ahmedabad, land bearing Survey Nos. 292 and 294, admeasuring 25 gunthas, and 2 acres-27 gunthas, situated at Isanpur, Ahmedabad and land bearing Survey Nos. 613, 614, 567, 615 and 616, situated at village Isanpur, Ahmedabad, respectively.
( 2 ) WHEREAS, all these Special Civil Applications involve common questions of law, based on identical set of facts, all these six Special Civil Applications have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment and order.
( 3 ) WHEREAS the arguments have been made with reference to the pleadings in special Civil Application Nos. 434 of 1983 and 13973 of 1994, for precision, the reference will be hereinafter made to the pleadings contained in these two petitions. Whereas, Mr. P. J. Vyas adopted the submissions made at the Bar by learned Senior counsel Ms. Vasuben Shah, who has appeared for the petitioner in Special Civil application Nos. 434 of 1983 and 13973 of 1994, the adjudication of the submissions is with regard to all the six Special Civil Applications, as aforesaid.
( 4 ) THE petitioner Musamiya Imamhadar Bax Razvi has come with the case that, while he was minor, the management of the lands in question was entrusted to the collector of Ahmedabad, under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act. The petitioner became major in May 1958 and thereupon the Collector had entrusted the administration of the lands in question to the petitioner. The Collector, during his management, granted the lands for cultivation on lease to one Bai Marium, daughter of Zafarkhan, for a period of one year, i. e. , 1954-55, on annual rent of rs. 360/- and the same was continued year to year. The lease was in the nature of "ek-Sali Lease", but in the year 1958 when the petitioner took over the management on his attaining the age of majority, he let out the said lands to Bai marium at the reduced rate of Rs. 175. 00 upto 31st July 1961. The allegations with regard to the past period in respect of these lands are that, prior to the year 1947, it was possessed by one Shri R. M. Mohmad and his forefathers who had transferred these lands to Bhathiji and in the year 1947, Bhathiji had transferred these lands to Bai Marium, who had leased out the above lands to one Shri Manilal Mohanlal, in the year 1948. In the year 1949-50, Shri Vallabhbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel had trespassed over the lands from which he was summarily evicted by the Collector in the year 1952-53 and the possession was taken back by the Collector from the trespasser Shri Vallabhbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and it was restored back to Bai marium, as aforesaid.
( 5 ) ON 19th May 1961, a sale deed was executed by Bai Marium in favour of the respondent No. 1, i. e. , Natverlal Chunilal Patel. It is stated in paragraph 4 of special Civil Application No. 434 of 1983 that, the respondent No. 1 took over the possession of the lands in question after the execution of the sale deed on 19th may 1961 and he applied for mutation of the entries in his favour. A reference has been made to the mutation entry dated 9-1-1963 in favour of the respondent g. R. 136 no. 1, i. e. , Natverlal Chunilal Patel which was certified by the Circle Inspector on 1-3-1963. The pre
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
