Point of Law: None of provisions of Bombay Tenancy Act 1948 particularly provisions contained in Section 32 of Act under which tenants became entitled to purchase lands held by them in that capacity on tillers' day is in any way inconsistent with any of express provisions of Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act. Section 32 must therefore govern rights of ex-Inamdar and his tenants notwithstanding abolition of Inams brought about by Alienations Abolition Act -

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment in Special Civil Application No.4663 of 1995. A common judgment and order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.09.2007 in Special Civil Application No.4651 of 1995 with Special Civil Application No.4663 of 1995, whereby the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the judgment and order, dated 29.04.1995 passed by the State Government [Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat (Appeals), Revenue Department].

2. The Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat Government, Ahmedabad, through its Common Order passed in Revision Application Nos.23/1993, 24/1992 and 1/1992, confirmed the Eviction Order and cancelled the N.A. Permission granted for residential purpose, considering the tenants as “unauthorized holders” under the provisions of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Watans Act' for short). The learned Single Judge while over-turning the order affirmed – Mohanbhai Somabhai and Becharbhai Somabhai, to be the 'Deemed Purchasers' and considered the sale of land in their favour to be in compliance of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act' for short) and subsequently considered the cancellation of N.A. Permission as bad and illegal.

3. The appellants herein claimed themselves to be the 'Watandars' of the land bearing Survey Nos.1581/A and 1581/B, situated at Anand. The appellants have challenged the status of Mohanbhai Somabhai and Becharbhai Somabhai of being “tenants” of the disputed land and have thereby, raised the grounds that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the tenants have failed to discharge the onus that they are the lawful tenants so to avail the benefit under Section 8 of the Watans Act. Further, unless the status of the landlord is not decided under Section 3 of the Watans Act, the tenants could not claim benefits under the provisions of Section 32 of the Tenancy Act and thereby the alleged “deemed purchaser” could not apply for N.A. Permission as being the tenant.

4. Ms. Bhavika H. Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the order dated 26.11.1990 passed by the District Collector was cryptic, ex facie bad and illegal and has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record. It was submitted that the order dated 03.12.2991 passed by the respondent remanding the matter for being decided afresh was not appreciated by the learned Single Judge in its proper perspective and said Mohanbhai Somabhai and Becharbhai Somabhai have been wrongly held as 'Deemed Purchasers'. The District Collector, by his order dated 24.08.1992, has held them as unauthorized occupants and therefore, no right to claim benefits under the Tenancy Act would survive. She contended that the appellants, as 'Watandars', are the rightful owners of the land in question and hence, the tenants have no right to apply for N.A. Permission.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Ajaykumar Choksi for respondent nos.1 to 8, petitioners before the learned Single Judge, contended that they are the Successors-in-Title of one Somabhai Vaghabhai Gohel, who and his predecessor – Motibhai Vaghabhai, were the tenants of the disputed lands for more than 80 years. They have inherited the right through the predecessors by way of tenancy, being in possession of the disputed lands, on Tillers' day i.e. 13.12.1960 and they had become entitled to purchase the disputed lands. Accordingly, they purchased the same under the provisions of Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. The Land Revenue and Betterment Charges were paid to the Anand Municipality. Mr. Choksi, learned counsel, further submitted that the matter has already attained finality by a reasoned order, delivered in Letters Patent Appeal No.2035 of 2007 and Letters Patent Appeal No.1703 of 2007 preferred by 'Watandars' and the State respectively.

6. Learned Assist