1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners – the State of Gujarat have challenged the order dated 16.06.2009 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Revision Application No.TEN/BA/381/ 2005, whereby the Tribunal has set aside the order dated 30.04.2005 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Vadodara in Tenancy/Appeal/Case No.37/2004 as well as the order dated 25.07.1980 passed by the Mamlatdar & Agriculture Lands Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Mamlatdar & ALT”) in Tenancy Case No.3050.

2. The facts of the case stated briefly are that the land bearing survey No.177/1, admeasuring Hectares 0-16-19 square metres of Mouje Manjalpur, Taluka & District Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”) were of the ownership of one Manjibhai Nathabhai and Bhaijibhai Nathabhai. By a registered sale deed dated 30.06.1958, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents No.1 to 3 purchased the said lands pursuant to which, mutation entry No.776 came to be posted in the village form No.6. Subsequently, the competent authority confirmed the mutation entry with an endorsement “It is a fragment; however, 7/12 reveals that there is a tenant. Issue notice under section 135(d), preparing the papers, fine of Rs.1/-approved.” It appears that thereafter, the record of rights team obtained information from the Manjalpur village record in the context of the amended provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Tenancy Act”) and was of the view that the provisions of section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act were applicable to survey No.177/1 and accordingly, proceedings came to be initiated under the said provisions, which culminated into an order dated 25.07.1980 passed by the Mamlatdar & Agricultural Lands Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Mamlatdar & ALT”) in Tenancy Case No.3050, whereby it was held that the respondent No.4 – Mohanbhai Kalabhai was a tenant under section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act and was, therefore, entitled to get back the possession. However, since he was not willing to take back the possession, it was ordered that the land be vested in the State Government and be disposed of under section 32P of the Tenancy Act.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, the respondents No.1 to 3 filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Vadodara being Tenancy Appeal No.37/2004. The Deputy Collector dismissed the said appeal by an order dated 30.04.2005 mainly on the ground of delay and confirmed the order dated 25.07.1980 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed a revision application before the Tribunal, which allowed the revision application and set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Collector as well as the Mamlatdar & ALT, which has given rise to the present petition at the instance of the State of Gujarat.

4. Assailing the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, Ms. Nisha Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the respondent No.4 – Mohanbhai Kalabhai was a tenant on 15.06.1955, viz., the appointed date and the sale deed in favour of the ancestors of the respondents No.1 to 3 came to be executed in 1958. Under the Tenancy Act, the appointed date is 15.06.1955, whereas the specified date is 03.03.1973. It was submitted that section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act would be applicable in a case where a tenant has been dispossessed during the period from “the appointed date” to “the specified date” and as such, the provisions of section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act would clearly be attracted in the present case. Referring to the impugned order passed by the Mamlatdar, it was pointed out that in the record of rights the name of Mohanbhai Kalabhai was running as a tenant for the period between 1951-52 to 1955-56 and that the tenant was also shown to be a protected tenant. Ther