The court upheld the Tribunal's decision affirming tenant rights based on longstanding possession and admissions, indicating the strength of historical claims in tenancy disputes under the Tenancy Act.

JUDGMENT :

Nirzar S. Desai, J.

1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jay Trivedi as well as learned advocate Mr. Tattvam K. Patel waives service of rule on behalf of respective respondents.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 4.9.2015 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN/BA/819/1996 qua the observations declaring the respondent No.4 as tenant of the land in question and have further prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.7.1996 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) in Tenancy Appeal No.636 of 1994 as well as the order dated 7.9.1994 passed by the Mamlatdar, Nadiad in Tenancy Case No.190 of 1994 qua the observations holding that there are breach of conditions of provisions of Section 32P(7)(8) of the Gujarat Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act'). The petitioners have further prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.11.2015 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT.

3. With the consent of parties, the matter was heard finally on 29.11.2023. Thereafter, due to paucity of time, the judgment could not be dictated and the matter was adjourned to 30.11.2023 and thereafter to today i.e. 4.12.2023. When the matter was heard, submissions made by learned advocates were considered. However, at the time of dictating the judgment, the Court found some factual discrepancies in the pleadings and hence, learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit appearing for the petitioner has submitted brief synopsis stating correct facts of the case today and hence, the same is taken on record.

4. Rule. Mr. Jay Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned advocate Mr. Tattvam K. Patel waives service of rule on behalf of respective respondents.

5. The factual matrix of the petition are stated as under :-

5.1 The dispute raised by this petition is in respect of the land bearing Revenue Survey No.1181 admeasuring Acres 2 - 12 Are at village Lakhavadpati, Tal. Nadiad, Dist. Kheda. According to the petitioners, one Shivabhai Lakhabhai was the original landlord of the land in question and one Ranchhod Chotabhai was tenant who was protected tenant as his name was entered into the revenue record vide Entry No.1238 mutated in March 1949.

5.2 As the tenant Ranchhod Chotabhai was not willing to purchase the land in question, the purchase of land in question in favour of the tenant was held to be ineffective vide order dated 23.7.1966 for which Entry No.2646 dated 23.7.1966 was mutated.

5.3 In the year 1967, as the purchaser did not purchase the land and the purchase came to be held ineffective by way of Ganot Case No.666, the Mamlatdar & ALT vide order dated 24.4.1967 terminated the rights of the tenant Ranchhod Chotabhai and the land was granted to original owner i.e. father of the present petitioner by passing order as per the precedence under Section 32P(7)(8) of the Tenancy Act and the aforesaid sale was reflected vide Entry No.2937 dated 24.4.1967 in the revenue records.

5.4 According to the petitioners, order dated 24.4.1967 is never challenged at any point of time by any person.

5.5 In the year 1974, original tenant preferred application under Section 32 (p)(7)(8) read with Section 84 -C before the Mamlatdar & ALT on the ground that the landlord has transferred the land in question in favour of respondent No.4 - Motibhai Allubhai Parmar and, therefore, the same amounts to breach of condition of allotment. In the aforesaid proceedings, father of the respondent No.4 i.e. Motibhai Allubhai Parmar took a stand that he purchased the land from the ances