IMPORTANT POINT: The Collector or the Deputy Collector could not call for any record after the expiry of one year from the date of the order passed by the Mamlatdar or the Tribunal, in view of the proviso to Section 76A of the said Act, and therefore, the very initiation of the proceedings under Section 76A at the instance of the Deputy Collector was bad in law

1. The present petition, filed by the original petitioner Pragjibhai Lallubhai Patel under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 7.12.2000 (Annexure-F) passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). During the pendency of the petition, the original petitioner having expired, his legal heirs have been permitted to be brought on record. Earlier Mr.Harshad J. Shah, learned Counsel was appearing for the respondent No.1 Raysingbhai Ishvarbhai Patanwadia, who claimed to be the tenant in respect of the land in question. According to Mr.Shah, he was not able to get any instructions either from the respondent No.1 or from the advocate who appeared for the respondent No.1 in the trial Court, and hence, this Court had permitted him to withdraw his appearance. Mr.Bhargav Hasukar appears as Amicus Curiae for respondent No.2 Trust, the original owner of the land.

2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the land bearing Survey No.12 admeasuring 1 acre and 5 gunthas situated in the Sim of Village Vaniyad, Taluka Shinor, District Vadodara, belonged to the respondent No.2 Trust, which was being managed by the Vahivat Karta deceased Ranchhodbhai Govindbhai. As per the case of the petitioner, the said land was transferred by the said Trust in favour of the petitioner by executing a writing on 10.8.1965 and since then the petitioner was in possession of and was cultivating the land in question. It is further case of the petitioner that the Mamlatdar and ALT, Dabhoi had initiated an inquiry under Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Tenancy Act”), however, had dropped the proceedings of the inquiry as per the order dated 10.8.1978 (Annexure-A). In the said inquiry proceedings, the respondent No.1 was also a party. However, the said order remained unchallenged at the instance of the respondent No.1. The Mamlatdar and ALT again initiated another inquiry under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act and again dropped the said proceedings vide the order dated 6.9.1988 (Annexure-B). The said order also remained unchallenged at the instance of the respondent No.1. However, the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Vadodara in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 76A of the Tenancy Act, suo motu took the matter for review and vide the order dated 11.6.1990 (Annexure-C) remanded the case to the Mamlatdar and ALT, holding that the petitioner Pragjibhai L. Patel was in unauthorized possession of the land in question and, therefore, he was required to be evicted and the possession of the land was required to be handed over to the respondent tenant.

3. Pursuant to the said order passed by the Deputy Collector, the Mamlatdar and ALT again initiated the proceedings under Section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act, which was registered as the Ganot Case No.414 of 1989. The said Mamlatdar and ALT vide the order dated 27.1.1992 (Annexure-D) held that the sale made by the respondent No.2 Trust in favour of the petitioner was illegal, and therefore, directed them to hand over the possession of the land in question to the respondent No.1 tenant under Section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act. The petitioner and the respondent No.2 being aggrieved by the said order had preferred an appeal being Appeal No.10/1992 before the Assistant Collector, who vide the order dated 6.3.1993 (Annexure-E) allowed the same and set aside the order dated 27.1.1992 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT. The respondent No.1, therefore, filed the revision application being TEN.B.A. 398/1993 before the Tribunal, who vide the impugned order dated 7.12.2000 (Annexure-F) allowed the same and directed that the possession of the land in question be obtained from the petitioner or his successor-intitle and to hand it over to the legal heirs of the respondent No.1. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.