Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
A.Y. KOGJE, J
HEIRS OF RAJABHAI MOHAMMED HUSSAIN SHAIKH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13904 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR PM BHATT
For the Respondents: GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MR BHARAT R PANDYA, MR. RAJAN J PATEL
Court affirmed the primacy of established tenancy rights under the Tenancy Act while rejecting the challenge based on prior ownership claims.
Headnote:(A) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 - Section 32 - Challenge to orders regarding tenancy rights - Petitioners contest the tenancy claims by private respondents, citing historical ownership and previous orders - Court finds no sufficient evidence to support petitioners' claims and upholds the GRT's decision. (Paras 2, 4, 17)
(B) Jurisdiction and Authority - The Deputy Collector's decision to revise earlier tenancy orders to protect small agrarian interests is deemed appropriate; procedural compliance observed. (Paras 14, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, claiming ownership of land, challenge lower tribunal decisions granting tenancy rights to private respondents, alleging legacy claims without jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
Court upheld the decisions of the Revenue Tribunal and lower courts, emphasizing insufficient evidence from petitioners.
Issues: Core issue was the legitimacy of the respondents' tenancy claims against the background of previous closure of proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that the historical context and evidence presented by the petitioners was inadequate to challenge the established tenancy rights endorsed by the lower courts.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. historical claims of ownership and tenancy rights. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. challenge to tenancy based on past jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments against the genuineness of previous orders. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's authority to re-examine tenancy claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final ruling and dismissal of the petition. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for challenging the order dated 22-11-2011 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT) in Revision Application No.TEN/BA/298/1995 and the order dated 5th July, 2012 again passed by the GRT in Review Application being No.TEN/CA/5/2012. As a necessary consequence, the petitioners also challenge the order dated 30-04-1993 and 22-03-1995 respectively passed by the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector respectively.
2.All the aforesaid orders are in connection with Survey No.830 and 839 of Village-Paldi Kankaj, Taluka-Dascroi, District-Ahmedabad pertaining to declaration of the private respondents herein as the Tenants of the aforesaid land. Therefore, all the aforesaid proceedings were under Section-32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 .
3.Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the ancestors of the petitioners are the original owners of the subject land, which was belated claimed to be tenancy land by the private respondents. Initially, the respondents had failed to establish such tenancy before the Revenue Authority. Despite this, by the impugned order successively, the respondent No.2 has been held to be tenants in the aforesaid land, thereby, causing the petitioners to lose their valuable rights in the aforesaid land.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that it was in the year 1969, when the claim of the respondents – tenants to be the tenants in the aforesaid land was adjudicated and the Additional Mamlatdar and ALT closed the file under Section-32(O) by his order dated 15-03-1969, therefore, names of the original owners in the year 1983-1984 till 1989- 1990 were shown in Village Form as owners and cultivators and the category of the land was also shown as old tenure land. It is the case of the petitioners that in subsequent years, by mistake name of one Bakorji Somaji appeared in the Village Form with effect from 1961-1962 to 1970-1971, on the basis of which the respondents had filed an application on 16-10-1990 claiming tenancy in the said land. Such application came to be withdrawn by Bakorji Somaji with a view to file another such application, which was filed before the Mamlatdar and ALT in Tenancy Case No.653 of 1990, which was withdrawn in 1991 by legal heirs of said Bakorji Somaji.
5.It is submitted that despite the proceedings claiming tenancy had concluded, it was the Deputy Collector who invoked Suo Motu powers revising the order dated 01-05-1991 on the ground that in the proceedings, reply of the concerned were not even recorded before permitting withdrawal of their application.
6.Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that though the proceedings under Section-32(O) were concluded long back, when the order dated 15-03-1969 was passed, where the respondents were not declared to be tenants, in Suo Motu proceedings taken out after long period, the respondents changed their stand being legal heirs of the so called tenants and claimed that ever since they have been cultivating the land, since their forefathers days. Relying upon such shifting of stand by the private respondents, the Collector has remanded the matter. Learned Advocate has therefore submitted that the claim of the respondents to be tenants cannot be treated to be a genuine claim in view of the diametrically opposite stands taken by the original owners claiming tenancy and subsequent legal heirs.
7.It is submitted that after very long period in the year 1993, the Mamlatdar concluded the proceedings of tenancy in favour of the private respondents and determined the mark
