JUDGMENT :

1. The original petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2363 of 1978 has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal on account of rejection of the petition by a single word order "rejected" on November 21, 1978.

2. The property involved in this proceeding is the land bearing Survey No. 1599, admeasuring 3 acres 23 gunthas of village Nardipur, Taluka-Kalol, District-Mehsana. The respondent No. 2 - Chittaranjan Ramniklal Pandya was the landlord of the said land and the said land was in tenancy with one Patel Raichand Mohanlal since 1952-53 as the said landlord was a minor on the tillers' day ie., April 1, 1957. He had initiated the proceedings, being Tenancy Case No. 1506 of 1957, under the provisions of Section 31 read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (for short "BTAL Act") but the said proceeding was not decided in his favour. Thereafter, he had obtained a Certificate under Section 88-C of the BTAL Act and then initiated proceedings under Section 32-T against his tenant Raichand Mohanlal for getting possession of the said land for his personal cultivation. But, before this proceedings there were entries in Panipatrak in the record of rights for the said land for the year 1956-57 to 1962-63 showing Raichand Mohanlal as well as one Jivanji Motiji as persons cultivating the said lands as tenants. The said Jivanji is father of petitioner's husband Shivaji. Before initiating the proceedings under Section 32-T, the landlord had issued a notice to both his tenants. As far as petitioner's father-in-law Jivanji is concerned, in the said notice it was clearly averred by him that Jivanji was never introduced as a tenant by the landlord and the landlord had never accepted his status as a tenant and the entries in his name as a tenant in the said land in the Panipatrak were illegal and improper. That the said notice was issued and served on the petitioner's father-in-law. He had not taken part in the said proceedings initiated by the landlord for getting possession of the land for personal cultivation. The said proceedings ended on September 28, 1962 with an order to deliver the possession of half of the land in favour of the landlord.

3. But it seems that again some mischief was committed while making entry regarding the delivery of possession of the said land in pursuance of the order passed by the Land Tribunal in favour of the landlord and it was shown in the said entry that the possession of land was given to the landlord from both Raichand Mohanlal as well as Jivanji Manji. Jivanji Manji died in the year 1972 but till his death, he had not initiated any proceedings under Section 70-B of BTAL Act for getting a declaration that he was the lawful tenant of the land in question and that he was in possession of the land in question on the particular date. But thereafter, the present petitioner filed an application before the Kalol Taluka Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal on December 31, 1973 alleging therein that the landlord was not cultivating the land personally and as her father-in-law was the tenant of the said land as his heir, she should be given possession of the said land. After getting the said application, the Tenancy Mamlatdar and Land Tribunal suo-motu initiated a proceeding under Section 32-U of BTAL Act and passed an order of November 21, 1976 ordering that the possession of half of the land should be given to the present petitioner as her father-in-law was the tenant.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said decision of the Agricultural Land Tribunal & Tenancy Mamlatdar, the original tenant Raichand Mohanlal preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector of Mehsana, being Tenancy Appeal No. 5 of 1977. The learned Deputy Collector, after considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner's father-in-law was not a tenant and consequently, the petitioner could not also become a tenant, and therefore, the suo-motu proceedings initiated by the