The court affirmed that the protected tenant's rights under the Tenancy Act cannot be overridden by private agreements or settlements that do not comply with statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT :

(Sunita Agarwal, CJ.)

The instant appeal has arisen out of the judgment and order dated 04.04.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition upholding the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT dated 08.07.1997 in Tenancy Case No. 87 of 1996 as also the order passed by the Deputy Collector (LR), Appeals, Vadodara dated 19.12.2003 passed in Tenancy Appeal No. 73 of 2001 and the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT) dated 20.01.2004 in the Revision Application No. 188 of 2004, subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal.

2. The facts noted by the learned single Judge discerned from the record, are that the land bearing Survey No. 816 situated at Gorva, Vadodara, subject matter of consideration in the original writ petition, was mutated in the name of Kushaldas Fulabhai vide Mutation Entry No. 514 dated 01.09.1954 after partition in the year 1954. The name of one Chhatrasinh Pratapsinh was entered in the revenue records as a “protected tenant” being in occupation of the land-in-question vide Revenue Entry No. 588/38. It seems that vide registered sale deed dated 6.7.1955, the land-in-question was sold by the original landlord, namely Kushaldas Fulabhai and others to one Muljibhai Mathurbhai Dalwadi, the father of the original petitioner. It is the case of the original petitioner that in the Tenancy Case No. 141 of 1995 under the Bombay Tenancy Act’ 1948, the tenant, namely Chattrasinh Pratapsinh, father of the original respondent No.1 had foregone his rights and surrendered the tenancy and the possession of the land-in-question was handed over to the original landlord namely, Kushaldas Fulabhai, the predecessor-in-title of the original petitioner.

3. In the year 1996, the proceedings under Section 32G under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act’ 1948, applicable in the State of Gujarat (in short referred to as the ‘Tenancy Act, 1948), namely Tenancy Case No. 87 of 1996 was initiated by the heirs of the original tenant namely Chattrasinh Pratapsinh before the Mamlatdar & ALT, Vadodra, wherein the original petitioner and other heirs of the purchaser namely Muljibhai Dalwadi had been joined as party respondents as land owners. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.1 (heirs of the tenant) remained present before the Mamlatdar & ALT and therefore, by the order dated 08.07.1997, the Mamlatdar & ALT had disposed of the said proceedings declaring the sale in favour of the respondent No.1 namely the heirs of the original tenant as ineffective under Section 32G (3) of the Tenancy Act, 1948 and passed an order to dispose of the land-in-question as per the provisions of Section 32P of the Tenancy Act’ 1948.

4. After a period of four years, the original petitioner preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 73 of 2001 before the Deputy Collector (LR) Appeals, Vadodara alongwith the application to condone the delay. By the order dated 19.12.2003, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. The Revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT) was also dismissed vide order dated 20.10.2004. The original petitioner, then preferred Special Civil Application No. 3102 of 2005, which was contested by the respondent No.1 and other heirs of the original tenant Chattrasinh Pratapsinh. This Court while admitting the writ petition passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain the status quo qua the land-in-question.

5. In the meantime, on an application filed by the heirs of the erstwhile tenant dated 25.05.2004 under Section 32P(2)(c), an order dated 08.02.2005 was passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT disposing of the land-in-question in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Section, subject to the restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act’ 1948.

6. It is noted by the learned single Judge that inspite of the order dated 08.02.2005 being in favour of the heirs and legal representatives of the original tenant, the petitioner-heirs and legal representatives of the original land owne