The deletion of Section 121 of the Town Planning Act established the applicability of the Tenancy Act to the disputed land, and the court upheld the orders based on cultivation evidence and absence of legal infirmity.

Abhilasha Kumari, J.

1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.06.1990, passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT (respondent No. 1 herein) in Tenancy Case No. 7084/1989, the order dated 28.06.1993, passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) Appeal, Vadodara (respondent No. 2 herein) in Appeal No. TEN/D/REVI/76-A/24/92 and the order dated 07.03.2001, passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/907/1993.

2. The brief factual background in which the petition has been filed is that, the petitioners claim to be the owners of lands bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 887, 901, 574/1, 874/2, admeasuring Hectare-Are-Sq.mtr. 0-9-11, 0-25-29, 0-15-18, and 0-12-14, situated in village Bapod, Taluka Vadodara (the land in question). Respondents No. 3 (since deceased, now represented by his heirs, respondents Nos. 3/1 to 3/5) as well as respondents Nos. 4 and 5, filed an application under Section 70-B of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("the Tenancy Act" for short) before the first respondent to be declared as tenants of the land in question. Respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 19.06.1990, declaring respondents Nos. 3 to 5 as tenants upon the said land. Aggrieved by the order of the Mamlatdar, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the second respondent, who, by an order dated 28.06.1993, confirmed the order passed by the first respondent, and rejected the appeal. The petitioners preferred a revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) against the order passed by respondent No. 2. The said application has been rejected by an order dated 07.03.2001. Aggrieved by the above-mentioned orders, the petitioners have approached this Court.

3. It transpires from the record that, initially, this very petition had been allowed by an order dated 06.10.2003, passed by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.A. Puj), on the basis of the Consent Terms jointly filed by the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 to 5. Thereafter, respondents Nos. 3 to 5 filed an application, being Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 3326 of 2006, for the recall of the order dated 06.10.2003, on the ground that the Consent Terms had been obtained fraudulently by the petitioners, who had not acted in accordance with the settlement. This Court, passed an order dated 24.08.2007, in the Miscellaneous Civil Application, recalling the order dated 06.10.2003 passed in the petition, and restored the petition. The petition has thus been revived and is at the stage of final hearing.

4. During the pendency of the petition, an application for joining as party respondent was filed by respondent No. 6 herein, which has been allowed. The case of respondent No. 6 is to the effect that the petitioners have sold a part of the land in question to him, by a registered Sale Deed dated 16.09.2004. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have been declared as tenants over this parcel of land by way of the impugned orders. According to respondent No. 6 he, being a purchaser of the land, has an interest over it, which ought to be protected.

5. In the above factual background, learned counsel for the respective parties have made detailed submissions before this Court.

6. Mr. Chirag B. Patel, learned advocate appearing for Mr. B.S. Patel, on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that respondent No. 1 has passed the impugned order without considering the fact that the land in question is within the limits of Vadodara Municipal Corporation, therefore, the provisions of the Tenancy Act are not applicable. That respondent No. 2, as also the Tribunal, have not considered this aspect in proper perspective, and have ignored the provisions of Section 121 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ("the Town Planning Act"), which clearly provides that wherever the Town Planning