Back
2018 Supreme(Guj) 1244
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
Chabaji Balaji Since Deceased - Appellant
Versus
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal - Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14696 of 2016
Decided on : 09-05-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :BHARTI N. WADHWANI, MR MIHIR THAKORE, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR VIMAL A. PUROHIT, Adv.
For the Respondent: MR UTKARSH SHARMA, MR MC. BHATT, MR JIGAR P. RAVAL, MR PRANAV S. DAVE, MR SHIVANG M. SHAH, Adv.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 227 – Legality and validity of order – Appeal against Order passed by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal – Tribunal rejected Revision Application – Challenged – Held, No case is made out to disturb order passed by revenue tribunal – Court see no good reason to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India – Petitioners failed to establish findings recorded by tribunal could be termed as perverse – Unless findings recorded by tribunal is shown to be perverse, it would not be open for Court to disturb same – There is no illegality or impropriety in order passed by tribunal – Order passed by tribunal is eminently just and proper and same is not required to be interfered with by exercising powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India – Appeal Dismissed – Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1952 – Section 7 [Para 51]
Facts of the Case:
Under Article 227 of Constitution of India, applicants challenging legality and validity of order passed by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application by which, Tribunal rejected revision application filed by applicants herein, thereby, affirming order passed by Deputy Collector.
Findings of the case:
No case is made out to disturb order passed by revenue tribunal – Court see no good reason to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India – Petitioners failed to establish findings recorded by tribunal could be termed as perverse – Unless findings recorded by tribunal is shown to be perverse, it would not be open for Court to disturb same – There is no illegality or impropriety in order passed by tribunal – Order passed by tribunal is eminently just and proper and same is not required to be interfered with by exercising powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
Result : Appeal Dismissed
1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 09/10/2015 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the Revision Application No.TEN.BA.244 of 2015, by which, the Tribunal rejected the revision application filed by the applicants herein, thereby, affirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector, dated 04/06/2014 in the Tenancy Case No.64 of 2012 as well as the order dated 25/11/1977 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT in the Tenancy Case No.19 of 1977.
2. The facts of this case as pleaded in the application are as under:
2.1 It is respectfully stated and submitted that what transpires from the revenue record made available to the petitioners is such that the land bearing survey no.891 admeasuring hectare 1.40.63 sq. mtrs., survey no.896 admeasuring hectare 1.32.52 sq. mtrs, survey no.897 admeasuring hectare 1.33.55 sq.mtrs. of village Vastral, Tal: Daskroi (old), Vatva (new), Dist. Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the “land in question”) is in occupation, possession and cultivation of the petitioners and before the same, was cultivated by the ancestors of the present petitioners in the capacity of the tenant of the land in question.
2.2 It further transpires from the revenue record that one Shri Shayamrai Bhagvanrai Munshi was Inamdar of the land in question. It is not in dispute that the village was (Inam village).
2.3 It is submitted that upon coming into force of the Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1952, by Virtue of provision of the said Act, all the Inami Lands vested into State Government without any encumbrances. It is further submitted that as per the scheme of the Act, upon implementation of Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1952, the rights of the Inamdar gets extinguished and as per the provision of scheme of the Act, rights ascertained by the Inamdar as well as occupant which are in actual physical possession and cultivation in their respective capacity, by way of formal inquiry, are required to be declared as occupant or in other words the capacity as well as quantum of the assessment which was priory paid to the Inamdar. It is submitted that in the Vastral village also, upon implementation of the Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1952, all the lands which were now occupation and possession of the then Inamdar, vested into State Government Without any encumbrances.
2.4 It is respectfully stated and submitted that hence in the year 1946, all the rights, title and interest over the land in question as far as Inarmdar was concerned, got extinguished and same came to be transferred/vested with the landlord Dahyabhai Parmar and thereafter the same was absolute owner of the land in question and which ancestors of the petitioners was in physical possession and cultivation in the capacity of the tenant.
2.5 It is submitted that in fact, the ancestors of the land in question cultivated the same personally since before 1945 in the capacity of the tenant/occupant of Inamdar. It is submitted that at the relevant time, the share in crop was also shared with Inamdar and after 1946 in the capacity of the tenant of one Shri Dahyabhai Pragjibhai Parmar - landlord. It is submitted that at the relevant time, the share in crop was also shared with landlord Dahyabhai Parmar and the relation between the ancestors of the petitioners and the landlord - Dahyabhai Parmar was as of tenant and landlord. It is submitted that however upon implementation of the Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1952. It is submitted that as per the provisions of the Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1952, name of the Dahyabhai Pragjibhai Parmar was mutated in the revenue record as occupant of the land in question by virtue of entry no.100.
2.6 It is respectfully stated and submitted that erroneously the land in question was vested in State Government, without any encumbrances, by virtue of Section 7 of the Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1952.
