SCA/12310/1994 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12310 OF 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG ========================================================= 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? ========================================================= PRAHLADBHAI JESANGBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s) Versus ISHWARBHAI J. PATEL, HEIR OF DECEASED MAFATLAL JIVRAMBHAI & ORS. - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR. SANJAY M. AMIN for Petitioner(s). NONE for Respondent(s) : 1. MR. N.D. GOHIL, AGP for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG Date : 15/11/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT Present is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness, validity and propriety of Order dated 12th August, 1994 SCA/12310/1994 2/5 JUDGMENT passed by the Revenue Tribunal dismissing the revision filed by the present petitioner. 2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present matter are that the petitioner's predecessor in title was given certain land as a tenant; after his death, the name of his successor i.e. Hargovanbhai Maganbhai Patel was brought on record. Somewhere in the year 1963, the land was restored in favour of the original landlord on the ground that the recorded tenant was unable to pay the money and purchase the property. However, despite re-transfer of the land in favour of the land owner, the name of Hargovanbhai Maganbhai Patel continued in the revenue records. It appears that somewhere in the year 1981, on the basis of the said entry, the Mamlatdar started proceedings under Section 32(FF) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. He made an order in favour of the recorded tenant. In the appeal by the land owner, the matter was remitted back; the Mamlatdar again granted the order in favour of the recorded tenant; yet in another appeal by the recorded owner, the matter was remanded; ultimately, by an Order dated 9th October, 1992, the Mamlatdar, Chanasma, directed the land owner to sell the property for a sum of Rs.836/- in favour of the recorded tenant, namely, Hargovanbhai Maganbhai Patel. Being aggrieved by the said SCA/12310/1994 3/5 JUDGMENT order, the said land owner, namely, Patel Ishwarbhai Jivrambhai, filed an appeal on various grounds. The appeal came to be allowed. The present petitioner, Jesangbhai Maganbhai Patel, sought to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Court before the Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal dismissed the revision, therefore, he has come to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Shri Amin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, after taking me through the records, submitted that the order passed in favour of the brother of the present petitioner was to enure to the benefits of the whole family, therefore, the petitioner was not required to submit before the Mamlatdar that an order be passed in his favour also. He submits that since the order passed in favour of the brother was set aside and the present petitioner, who was the party in the appeal, was aggrieved by the order, he could certainly challenge the order. 4. Undisputedly, the Mamlatdar did not make any order in favour of the present petitioner either in present petitioner's capacity as a recorded holder or as a beneficiary. If an order was made in favour of Hargovanbhai Maganbhai Patel and the present petitioner SCA/12310/1994 4/5 JUDGMENT was not dissatisfied with that order, then, the order would be deemed to have been passed and in fact, was passed in favour of Hargovanbhai. Whatever could be the arrangement between the brothers, but, for the purpose of official purpose, it has to be held that there was no order in favour of the present petitioner. If by the order passed by the Appellate Court/Authority, the said Hargovanbhai Maganbhai was not aggrieved, then, the present petitioner could not have challenged the said order. Even otherwise also, on the facts, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. 5. It is to be noted that the possession of the property was restored in favour of the original land owner somewhere in the year 1963 or 1964. If that be so, the relationship of the land owner and the tenant came to an end. Simply because the name of the brother of the present petitioner continued on the records, the relationship could not continue. Appreciating the case from every angle, I am unable to hold that the present petition calls for any interference at the instance of the present petitioner. It deserves to and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No costs. [R.S.Garg, J.] SCA/12310/1994 5/5 JUDGMENT kamlesh*