The Tribunal's discretion to admit or reject a revision application under Section 76 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act is not required to be accompanied by reasons for admission, as per Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules.

JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.1.2023 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) in Revision Application No. AMD/296/22 (for short “the revision application”).

2. By the impugned order the Tribunal has admitted the Revision Application filed by the Respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14.7.2022 passed by the Deputy Collector under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code 1879 (for short “the Code”).

3. The Tribunal on receipt of the revision application filed by Respondent No. 1 issued notice dated 30.8.2022 calling upon the petitioners for preliminary hearing of the revision application.

4. The petitioners in response to such notice filed objection against admission of the revision application.

5. After hearing the learned Advocates of the petitioners and Respondent No. 1 and after considering that the revision application is filed within the period of limitation, the Tribunal ordered to admit the revision application under Section 76 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act 1948 (for short “the Gujarat Tenancy Act”).

6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Jani appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Tattvam K. Patel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal has failed to hold that the revision application was required to be rejected considering the objections raised by the petitioners on merits, on law as well as on procedure which were tendered before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the Tribunal has not recorded any reason for admitting the revision application.

7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Jani has placed reliance upon Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy And Agricultural Lands (Bombay Revenue Tribunal Procedure) Rules, 1958 (for short “the Bombay Tenancy Rules”) which are applicable for the purpose of regulating the procedure to hear matters filed before the Tribunal.

8. It was submitted that as per sub Rule (3) of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules, the Tribunal may for the sufficient reasons admit or reject the application.

9. Reference was made to sub Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules to point out that the Tribunal is required to issue notice of preliminary hearing to the applicants or to duly appointed agent or lawyer after the application has been registered. It was also pointed out that after the issuance of notice under sub Rule (1) if the applicant does not appear before the Tribunal either in person or through agent or lawyer on the date mentioned in the notice, the application is required to be heard and decided ex parte. It was pointed out that as per the proviso to sub Rule (3) of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules no application shall be rejected without giving reasons in writing for doing so.

10. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Jani has also referred to sub Rule (4) of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules empowering the Tribunal to call for the record and proceedings of the case.

11. It was therefore submitted that in view of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules, the Tribunal ought to have given the reasons for admission of the revision application under Section 76 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act.

12. It was submitted that the petitioners have filed exhaustive written submissions raising the objections to the admission of the revision application relying upon the decided cases and pointed out that the Tribunal has very limited jurisdiction under Section 76 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act.

12.1 It was submitted that when there are concurrent findings, the Tribunal could not have admitted the revision application.

12.2 It was further pointed out that the proceedings under Section 32(1)(b) of the Gujarat Tenancy Act itself were not maintainable and therefore the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners is without jurisdiction and the Tribunal therefore could not have admitted the revision application.

13. Having