IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to interpret and apply the provisions of the Abolition Act and the Tenancy Act, and the requirement for the existence of a substantial question of law in a Second Appeal.

ORDER :

1. The present Second Appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the C.P.C. by the present appellants – original defendants challenging the impugned order dated 11.03.1988 passed below Exh.15 application in Regular Civil Appeal No.190 of 1984 by the learned 2nd Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Dholka in Regular Civil Suit No.239 of 1979, whereby the trial court has decreed the suit for possession of agricultural land from the defendants.

2. Brief facts of the case are as such that the plaintiffs are the trustees and Vahivatdar of Dholka Khoda Dhor Panjarapole Trust, which is registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, having its number 429. The said trust is the owner of agricultural lands including S.No.1680/1 and 1680/2 admeasuring A-2-13 gs. ench respectively. The plaintiff-Trust has come out with a case that they have obtained certificate under sec.88-B of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. On that basis, the notice was served to the occupants of the above survey numbers, who are yearly tenants of the said lands, and sought possession of the rate of Rs.40/- p.a. The suit notice was served on 23.12.1977 for terminating the tenancy, which was replied by the defendants. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed the present suit to recover possession and arrears of rent, which came to be rejected by the trial court. Subsequently, the lower appellate court has also confirmed the order of trial court. Hence, the present petition has been preferred.

3. Heard Mr. Satyam Y. Chhaya, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. K.J. Vyas, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5.

4. The following framed suggested substantial questions of law are as under:

“(1) Whether the decree passed by both the courts below can at all be sustained in view of the provisions of the B.T.& A.L. Act and the Gujarat Devasthan Inami Abolition Act?

(2) Whether in view of sec.85 and 85A of the B.T.& A.L. Act the findings on point Nos.3 and 4 can at all be sustained and are without jurisdiction and whether the decree for possession of suit lands can at all be sustained as in the suit, no reference is made to the competent authority who has exclusive jurisdiction to deal and decide the point Nos.3 and 4 and when the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred?

(3) Whether the decree passed is vitiated as no proper and legal procedure is followed ?

(4) Whether the construction placed in the matter of Section 88-B, 88-E of the B.T.& A.L.Act and the Gujarat Devasthan Inami Abolition Act is a correct construction and whether the certificate u/s. 88-B can at all be relied upon as the tenants were not heard when it was granted and whether in view of the Gujarat Devasthan Inami Abolition Act certificate u/s.88-B of the Tenancy Act stands cancelled?

(5) Whether the suit notice is legal and valid?

(6) Whether the facts and circumstances of the case the defendants can be granted relief against forfeiture?”

5. 1 Mr. Satyam Y. Chhaya, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the impugned order passed by the lower appellate court is bad in the eyes of law and in not in consonance with the provisions of law. Furthermore, he has submitted that the record suggests that the entire basis of the case of the plaintiffs was upon certificate issued by the competent authority under Section 88-B of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “the Tenancy Act”). Furthermore, he has submitted that as per Sections 85 and 85A of the Tenancy Act, it is clear that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question, which is by under this Act, required to be settled, decided or dealt with by Mamlatdar, Tribunal, Manager, Collector, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal or the State Government. Furthermore, he has submitted that as per Section 85A, if any question involving nicety of Tenancy Act cropped up in the civil lit