The court emphasized the discretion of the authority to remand a matter for a fresh process under the Tenancy Act and highlighted the principle of non-interference in the absence of perversity or material irregularity.

JUDGMENT :

(Ashutosh J. Shastri, J.)

1. By way of this Letters Patent Appeal the appellants - original petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of an oral order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 16881 of 2020.

2. The background of facts in brief is that the appellants - original petitioners are the legal heirs of Suraji Savaji (tenant) had applied for grant of land on 11.02.2014. The subject land in question bearing Survey No.945/2a+3a+4a paiki, admeasuring 7790 sq.mtrs., situated at Village : Uvarsad, Taluka & District : Gandhinagar. The said land in question was cultivated by the Suraji Savaji i.e. ancestor of the original petitioners in the capacity as a tenant and as such was declared as permanent tenant by virtue of order of Mamlatdar dated 27.11.1947 and accordingly, the mutation entry was also incorporated in the revenue record on 20.04.1948 being Entry No.3207. Under the provisions of Section 32 G of Tenancy Act, said Suraji Savaji i.e. ancestor of the original petitioners being the tenant was called upon whether he is desirous of purchasing the land in question or not but said Suraji Savaji had expired in the year 1960 and legal heirs were not issued with a notice and therefore, the purchase remained in effective possession resultantly an Entry No.5579 on 15.03.1967 came to be made. Subsequently, a Ganot case was registered bearing Ganot Case No.1808/88 and by virtue of order dated 17.02.1988, the land came to be taken over by State Government by virtue of provisions contained under Section 32 P of Tenancy Act and entry to that effect has also been mutated being Entry No.7984 dated 29.02.1988.

2.1 According to the original petitioners after taking over possession, the same has to be disposed of by virtue of provisions contained under Section 32 P (2) (C) of the Tenancy Act but it appears that said process had not been undertaken by the State Government and as such appellants - original petitioners being the legal heirs of Suraji Savaji since cultivating the land in question till 2013, hence once again, the proceedings to take over possession under Section 32 P (4) of Tenancy Act came to be initiated wherein the learned Mamlatdar and ALT vide order dated 08.10.2013 directed to take over the possession of land in question and possession came to be taken from the appellants to which effect, a panchnama has also been drawn on 30.10.2013.

2.2 It is the say of the appellants that Mamlatdar and ALT has initiated proceedings to dispose of the land by virtue of provisions contained under Section 32 P (2) (C) of Tenancy Act and issued a public notice as required under Rule 21(1) of the Tenancy Act on 28.01.2014. The purchase price was pre fixed and same was fixed at Rs.1162/-. The Notice came to be published and the panchnama has also been executed with respect to such publication on 28.01.2014. The original petitioners being legal heirs and representatives of deceased Suraji Savaji, the original tenant, has as such applied for grant of land vide application dated 11.02.2014.

2.3 It is further the case of appellants that after a period of five years, the appellants being the legal heirs of original tenant Suraji Savaji comes in the top of priority list in consonance with Section 32 P (2) (C) of the Tenancy Act and as such vide order dated 16.01.2019 the learned and ALT has allotted the land to the original petitioners and the purchase price which was fixed of Rs.1162/- has also been paid by the original petitioners and land has been allotted for cultivation to the original petitioners with restriction stipulated under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. Entry to this effect has also been mutated being Mutation Entry No.16649 on 29.05.2019 but according to original petitioners, then suddenly having realized such situation the superior authority i.e. learned Deputy Collector has taken the said order of Mamlatdar and ALT in suo moto review and upon satisfaction, the order dated