SCA/204620/2001 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2046 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= MOHANSINH HIMMATSINH RATHOD SINCE DECD BY HIS HEIRS & L.R & 5 - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARIN P RAVAL for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 6. MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. MR HARSHAD J SHAH for Respondent(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 11/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Petitioner land-owner of land bearing block No.386 of village Dholgam admeasuring 7 hectares has SCA/204620/2001 2/3 JUDGMENT filed this petition challenging the judgment and order dated 3rd January 2001 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.BA.735/93. By the said decision, the Tribunal was pleased to remand the proceedings to the Mamlatdar and ALT for leading further evidence and for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 2. Mamlatdar and ALT, Valia as well as the Deputy Collector, Rajpipla had turned down the application of respondent No.4 which was filed under section 17(B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Upon revision application, the Tribunal found that the evidence was inconclusive to decide whether respondent No.4 was cultivating the land as a tenant or whether the petitioner himself was cultivating his own land. After discussing the evidence on record at length, the Tribunal directed to remand the proceedings for further evidence observing that it would be useful to know whether the elder brother of the landlord was looking after the administration of the land and to see that the land revenue/education cess receipts for the previous years before 1991 to find out who has paid such taxes. 3. I do not find that the Tribunal committed any jurisdictional error so as to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is therefore dismissed. It is clarified that the Mamlatdar shall decide the issue afresh after permitting both sides to lead SCA/204620/2001 3/3 JUDGMENT further evidence unmindful of the observations made by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and this Court. 4. With the above clarification, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, is vacated. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)