SCA/14540/2007 1/12 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14540 of 2007 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 18073 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= SHANABHAI SHIVABHAI RATHOD & 1 - Petitioner(s) Versus SHANKERBHAI RAMABHAI RATHOD & 4 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MB GANDHI for Petitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7, 1.2.8, 1.2.9, 1.2.10, 1.2.11,1.2.12 – 2. MR CHINMAY M GANDHI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. MR YV BRAHMBHATT for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 - 5. ========================================================= CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI Date : 21/02/2008 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT 1. RULE. Mr. Y.V. Brahmbhatt, learned counsel SCA/14540/2007 2/12 JUDGMENT waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no. 1. The respondents nos. 2 to 5 have been served, but none appears on their behalf. Therefore, it is not necessary to serve notice of rule upon the said respondents. 2. The challenge in both these petitions is to the order dated 12th October, 2006, passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal [the “Tribunal” for short], whereby the Revision Applications of the petitioners in these two writ petitions, namely Revision Application No. 187 of 2004 and Revision Application No. 153 of 2004 have been dismissed, by a common order. Since the petitioners of both the petitions have a common interest and the same order is impugned in these petitions, which deal with similar factual and legal issues, both these petitions are being heard and decided together, in the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the petitions, as emerging from the averments made therein and the documents annexed thereto, are that the land bearing Survey No. 445/1, admeasuring 2 Acres and 3 Gunthas, situated in Village Anklav, Taluka Borsad, belonged to Jethabhai Narsinhbhai Vankar [petitioner of SCA/14540/2007 3/12 JUDGMENT Special Civil Application No. 18073 of 2007]. The respondent no. 1 in each petition namely, Shri Shankerbhai Ramabhai Rathod, claimed to be a tenant upon the land in question who had been tilling the land and growing crops thereupon for the past 25 years. An application under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [the “Tenancy Act” for short], was submitted by the respondent no. 1, for being declared as a tenant upon the land in question. On issuance of notices, the original landlord resisted the claim of the respondent no. 1. The statements of the respondent no. 1 were recorded on 19th September, 1992 and 24th September, 1992. It appears from the record that the matter remained pending for a considerably long period of time, for one reason or another. It transpires from the record that ultimately, notices were issued by R.P.A.D, to the parties to remain present on 14th October, 1996. The landlord i.e., Jethabhai Narsinhbhai Vankar, was served by R.P.A.D., with acknowledgment, which finds place at page 151 of the record, as stated in the impugned order. The record discloses that on 14th October, 1996 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time. Ultimately, the matter came to be decided in favour of the tenant and, vide order dated 6th February, 1997, of the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal SCA/14540/2007 4/12 JUDGMENT [ALT], the respondent no. 1 was declared to be a tenant of the land in question. No Appeal was preferred against this order by the landlord. However, the Deputy Collector, exercised his powers of suo motu, revision under Section 76A of the Tenancy Act in respect of the order dated 6th February, 1997 of the Mamlatdar and ALT, which came to be confirmed, by order dated 11th September, 2003. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Mamlatdar and ALT, the landlord [petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 18073 of 2007] sold the land to Shivabhai Babarbhai Rathod [petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 14540 of 2007] by registered sale deed dated 2nd February, 1994. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11th September, 2003, of the Deputy Collector [LR, Appeals of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 14540 of 2007 [purchaser of the land] filed Revision Application No. 187 of 2004 and the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 18073 of 2007 [landlord] filed Revision Application No. 153 of 2004, before the Tribunal, both of which have been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 12th October, 2006, giving rise to these petitions. 5. Mr. M.B. Gandhi, learned counsel for the SCA/14540/2007 5/12 JUDGMENT petitioners, in each petition has submitted as under; (i) That the impugned order dated 12th October, 2006 passed by the Tribunal is not a reasoned order inasmuch as the submissions of the parties have been recorded but they have not been properly dealt with and, no reasons have been assigned for dismissing the Revision Applications. (ii) That the Mamlatdar and ALT, has passed order dated 6th February, 1997, declaring the respondent no. 1 to be a tenant upon the land in question, in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the order was passed ex-parte, in the absence of the landlord and, therefore, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. It is submitted by Mr. Gandhi, that such an order cannot be allowed to stand and the matter should be remanded to the Mamlatdar and ALT to afford the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and for passing a fresh order thereafter. (iii) That the Revision Applications of the petitioners have been wrongly dismissed by the Tribunal, on the ground of delay though sufficient cause has been shown and the Tribunal has not dismissed the revision applications of the petitioners on merits, therefore, the matter may be SCA/14540/2007 6/12 JUDGMENT remanded for fresh hearing since the Tribunal has brushed aside, the reasons advanced by the petitioners for condonation of delay and no order on merits has been rendered by the Tribunal. 6. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent no. 1, in each petition, in which it has been stated that the respondent no. 1 has been held to be a tenant upon the land in question by the Mamlatdar and ALT, which order was not challenged by landlord or purchasers, before the competent Court and the same has also been confirmed by the Deputy Collector in suo motu, revision proceedings. It is also stated therein that thereafter, the Tribunal has dismissed the Revision Applications of the petitioners by order dated 12th October, 2006 and now there are concurrent findings of three revenue Courts, in favour of the respondent no. 1. 7. Mr. Y.V. Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, in each petition has supported the impugned order of the Tribunal, and has submitted that since there are concurrent findings of three Revenue Courts in favour of the tenant i.e., the respondent no. 1, this Court in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, may not interfere with the same. The learned counsel for respondent no. 1 SCA/14540/2007 7/12 JUDGMENT has further submitted that, since no Appeal was preferred by the petitioners against the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT, declaring the respondent no. 1 to be a tenant upon the land, this order has now attained finality and has been confirmed not only by the Deputy Collector, but also by the Tribunal. It is further urged by Mr. Brahmbhatt, that the petitioners could not have filed revision proceedings, before the Tribunal without filing an appeal against the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT. It is urged by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 that the Tribunal, by way of the impugned judgment and order, has not only dismissed the Revision Applications of the petitioners on the ground of delay, but also on merits. He has submitted that the order of the Tribunal dated 12th October, 2006 is a well-reasoned one and has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter and, since the said order does not suffer from any ambiguity, illegality or irregularity, this Court may not interfere with the same, and the petitions may be dismissed. 8. No other submissions, except those reproduced above, have been urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent no. 1. 9. I have heard Mr. M.B. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Y.V. Brahmbhatt, learned SCA/14540/2007 8/12 JUDGMENT counsel for the respondent no. 1 and have perused the averments made in the petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. The first contention of Mr. M.B. Gandhi, to the effect that the impugned order dated 12th October, 2006, should be set aside since, according to him, it does not contain any reasons, is not sustainable. A reading of the order dated 12th October, 2006 makes it evident that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the arguments advanced by the parties and has meticulously dealt with the issues arising therefrom. The Tribunal has recorded cogent reasons for the conclusion arrived at, and not only have the contentions raised by the respective parties, been minutely dealt with, but the order of the Tribunal also contains sufficient reasons for arriving at the findings, based upon the record. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgment and order of the Tribunal is an unreasoned one, is simply stated to be rejected. 10. The second submission of Mr. M. B. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the matter should be remanded to him for fresh hearing, is not worthy of acceptance in the light of the fact, that the landlord was served with notice of hearing by R.P.A.D., SCA/14540/2007 9/12 JUDGMENT and the acknowledgment to this effect, as noticed by the Tribunal, bears the signature of Jethabhai Narsinhbhai Vankar i.e., the original landlord and the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 18073 of 2007. It has been recorded in the order of the Tribunal that the notice by R.P.A.D., was received on 8th October, 1996 for the hearing to be held on 14th October, 1996, but the petitioner chose not to remain present. The order dated 12th October, 2006 of the Tribunal makes it amply clear that the land in question was sold by Jethabhai Narsinhbhai Vankar, [petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 18073 of 2007] to Shivabhai Babarbhai Rathod [petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 14540 of 2007] in the year, 1994, which fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Tribunal has noticed that the factum of sale of the land was not disclosed by the landlord during the revenue proceedings. It is borne out from the record that the landlord was served with the notices of hearing by R.P.A.D., but did not remain present. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, is without any basis. Consequently, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter should be remanded to the Mamlatdar and ALT, also, cannot SCA/14540/2007 10/12 JUDGMENT be accepted. 11. The last submission of Mr. Gandhi that the Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the Revision Applications of the petitioners on the ground of delay only and not on merits, is also not sustainable. A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal makes it sufficiently clear that, after discussing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties, and after going into the merits of the matter, and arriving at findings, in respect of the same, the Tribunal has, lastly gone into the aspect of delay and found, that no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioners for the condonation of delay. Before discussing the aspect of delay, the Tribunal has discussed the merits of the case and has noticed that the application of the respondent no. 1 under Section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act, was allowed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, declaring him to be a tenant of the said land, which order has been confirmed by the Deputy Collector, in suo motu revision proceedings, and further, no Appeal has been preferred by the petitioners against the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT. It has also been noticed by the Tribunal in the impugned order that the respondent no. 1 having been declared as a tenant upon the land in question, the purchase price as provided under Section 32(G) of the SCA/14540/2007 11/12 JUDGMENT Tenancy Act, has also been determined. Only thereafter, has the Tribunal discussed the aspect of delay, and has come to a conclusion that no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay in filing the Revision Applications. It becomes evident from a perusal of the impugned order that the Tribunal has rejected the Revision Applications on merits as well as on the ground of delay and, therefore, there is no force in the contentions of Mr. Gandhi that the Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the Revision Applications only on the ground of delay, without going into the merits. There is, therefore, no reason to direct the matters to be remanded, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 12. In light of the afore-mentioned reasons, the petitions must fail. This Court, in petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, would not like to interfere with concurrent findings of the Revenue Courts below, which are supported by cogent reasons. The judgment and order dated 12th October, 2006, passed by the Tribunal, therefore, does not call for interference by this Court. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no merit in these petitions, which are, therefore, SCA/14540/2007 12/12 JUDGMENT dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs. [Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.] /phalguni/