SCA/1020/2008 1/15 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1020 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1033 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1035 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1036 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 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 ? No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No ================================================================= REKHABEN RAVINDRA KAPADIA - Petitioner(s) Versus MOTIRAM JULAL PATIL & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : (In All SCAs) MR KM PARIKH for Petitioners MS KJ BRAHMBHATT for Respondent: 1 MR JASWANT K SHAH, AGP for Respondent:2 ========================================================= CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI Date : 28/01/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/1020/2008 2/15 JUDGMENT 1. Mr.K.M.Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioners, prays that he may be permitted to delete the respondent No.3 as party-respondent, from the array of respondents in each petition. The prayer is allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioners may make necessary amendment in the cause title of each petition forthwith. 2. Rule. Ms.Kalpana J.Brahmbhatt, learned counsel, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 in each petition. Mr.Jaswant K.Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.2 in each petition. Since these petitions are directed against the common order dated 6.7.2007 rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (“the Tribunal” for short), with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are heard finally and SCA/1020/2008 3/15 JUDGMENT disposed of by this common order today. 3. These writ petitions, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the common order dated 6.7.2007 rendered by the Tribunal rendered in Revision Applications No.TEN/BS/142/95, TEN/BS/143/95, TEN/BS/144/95 and TEN/BS/145/95. 4. Although the factual matrix in all the writ petitions is similar, for the sake of brevity, the facts pertaining in Special Civil Application No.1020 of 2008 are being referred to. 5. The facts emerging from a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition are that the petitioners are the original owners of agricultural land bearing Survey No.99, admeasuring 4 Hectare, 30 Gunthas and 99 Sq.Mtrs. Situated at village Balda, Taluka: Nizar, District: Surat. The respondent No.1 filed a SCA/1020/2008 4/15 JUDGMENT tenancy case under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“the Act” for short), which was registered as Tenancy Case No.1/1986, in the Court of the Mamlatdar and ALT at Nizar, for being declared as a tenant upon the said land. The Mamlatdar and ALT, after hearing the parties, allowed the application filed under Section 70(b) of the Act and by an order dated 10.6.1988 held that the respondent No.1 is the tenant of the land in question since the year 1966. Being aggrieved by the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Assistant Collector, Vyara, which was registered as Appeal No.58/1988. The Assistant Collector dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 27.3.1989. Thereafter, this order was challenged by the present petitioners before the Tribunal by filing Revision Application No.226/1989. SCA/1020/2008 5/15 JUDGMENT The Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 16.11.1994, remanded the matter back to the Deputy Collector for taking a fresh decision. The averments made in the writ petition reveal that pursuant to the order of remand by the Tribunal, the Deputy Collector registered remand case as Tenancy Appeal No.5/1995 and, vide order dated 30.6.1995, allowed the appeal of the petitioners and set aside the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 10.6.1988 rendered in proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Act in Tenancy Case No.1/1986. The respondent No.1, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.6.1995 rendered by the Deputy Collector, approached the Tribunal by filing the revision application as mentioned hereinabove, which has been allowed by the Tribunal by an order dated 6.7.2007, giving rise to the present writ petitions. SCA/1020/2008 6/15 JUDGMENT 6. Mr.K.M.Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 6.7.2007 of the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside as, the respondent No.1 has failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim as a tenant and, therefore, by upholding the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT, the Tribunal has fallen into jurisdictional error and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no documentary evidence to prove the factum of tenancy of the respondent No.1 and the oral evidence has wrongly been relied upon by the Mamlatdar to come to a conclusion in favour of the respondent No.1. According to Mr.Parikh, there is no evidence worth the name that the respondent No.1 was a tenant cultivating the land in question SCA/1020/2008 7/15 JUDGMENT and, therefore, since the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the factual and legal position, the judgment and order dated 6.7.2007 deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded for proper adjudication. Mr.K.M.Parikh has further contended that the Deputy Collector had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and allowed the appeal of the petitioner by setting aside the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 10.6.1988 rendered in proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Act and, that without properly appreciating the factual and legal aspects of the matter as required under the revisional jurisdiction, the Tribunal has wrongly allowed the revision applications filed by the respondent No.1. Lastly, it is submitted by Mr.Parikh that the respondent No.1 does not belong to the State of Gujarat but belongs to Maharashtra and does not hold SCA/1020/2008 8/15 JUDGMENT agricultural land in the State of Gujarat, therefore, he could not have been declared as a tenant on the land in question. 7. Ms.Kalpana J.Brahmbhatt, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, has strongly supported the judgment and order dated 6.7.2007 rendered by the Tribunal and has submitted that the application of the respondent No.1 under Section 70(b) of the Act filed by the respondent No.1 for being declared as tenant has been allowed by the Mamlatdar and ALT after scrutinizing the relevant records. She has submitted that the name of the respondent No.1 has rightly been recorded as a tenant of the land in question since the year 1966 and has been recorded by the team of revenue officials who had conducted an inquiry prior to the preparation of the revenue record and, this fact is so recorded in SCA/1020/2008 9/15 JUDGMENT the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 10.6.1988. It is further submitted by Mr.Brahmbhatt that the Mamlatdar and ALT has rendered a finding of fact to the effect that the respondent No.1 was residing in the house of the petitioners for years together and carrying on agricultural activities upon the land in question. Further, it is emphasized by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the judgment and order of the Tribunal has confirmed the findings of fact rendered by the Mamlatdar and ALT and, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, would not interfere with the findings of fact. It is further submitted by Ms.Brahmbhatt that the names of the respondent No.1 has been entered in the revenue record since the year 1966 and in this view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is no documentary evidence to show that the SCA/1020/2008 10/15 JUDGMENT respondent No.1 is a tenant upon the land in question, as has been rightly declared by the Mamlatdar and ALT an confirmed by the Tribunal. Lastly, it is submitted by Ms.Brahmbhatt that village Balda where the land in question is situated is now in the State of Gujarat, and on the contrary, the petitioners are residing in the State of Maharashtra and, therefore, the objection that the respondent No.1 is not a resident of the State of Gujarat is without substance. For the above reasons, Mr.Brahmbhatt has prayed that the petitions be dismissed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the averments made in the petitions as well as the documents annexed thereto. 9. The record of the case reveals that the Mamlatdar and ALT has allowed the applications of the respondent No.1 under Section 70(b) of the Act by giving SCA/1020/2008 11/15 JUDGMENT cogent reasons, which order has been upheld by the Tribunal. The finding that the respondent No.1 was cultivating the land on half crop-share basis and had been residing in the house of the petitioners on the land in question for years altogether is a finding of fact and there is nothing on the record of the case to refute the same. It is also clear from the record that the revenue team which had gone to make inquiries prior to the preparation of the revenue record has found the respondent No.1 to be in possession of the land and the name of the respondent No.1 is entered in the revenue record since the year 1966 and, therefore, on the basis of this documentary evidence, the Mamlatdar and ALT has conferred the status of a tenant upon the respondent No.1 regarding the land in question from the year 1966. The petitioners have not brought any evidence on the record to SCA/1020/2008 12/15 JUDGMENT the contrary and, therefore, the judgment and order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Tribunal has arrived at the factual and legal findings on the basis of the record which do not deserve to be interfered with by this Court. Therefore, the contention of Mr.K.M.Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the impugned judgment and order be set aside and the case be remanded cannot be accepted. There is no jurisdictional error in the judgment and order of the Tribunal impugned in the present petitions and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need to upset the same. 10. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the respondent No.1 is not a resident of the State of Gujarat, the same is without substance since, now SCA/1020/2008 13/15 JUDGMENT village Balda, where the land in question is situated, has come in the territory of the State of Gujarat and, on the contrary, the petitioners are now residing in the State of Maharashtra. Even otherwise, there is a finding of fact that the respondent No.1 was cultivating the land for years together on the crop sharing basis. Moreover, the respondent No.1 is neither a member of the land owners' (petitioners') family nor is there any evidence on record that he is a servant on wages payable in cash or kind. Moreover, the name of the respondent No.1 figures in the revenue records since the year 1966, which is the order from which the Mamlatdar and ALT has conferred the status of a tenant upon the respondent No.1. The findings of fact recorded in the judgment and order of the Tribunal cannot be interfered with by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles SCA/1020/2008 14/15 JUDGMENT 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Lastly, it cannot be lost sight of that this Act is a beneficial Legislation which has been enacted with the aim and object of improving the economic and social conditions of the peasants who are tilling the lands of the land owners, and for protecting their rights, with a view to promote social and economic justice, as contained in the directive principles enshrined in the Constitution of India. Viewed from this angle as well, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs. SCA/1020/2008 15/15 JUDGMENT (Smt.Abhilasha Kumari, J.) (sunil)