Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/212420/2008 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2124 of 2008
=========================================================
ISHWARBHAI
CHHANABHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SANJAY D SUTHAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS
for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3.
MR NV GANDHI for Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 24/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner has challenged an order dated 6.8.2007 passed by Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.B.S. 247/1994. By
the said order, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the revision
application of respondent No.4 herein. The order passed by the
Deputy Collector was set aside. Order passed by Mamlatdar and ALT
was restored. The Tribunal in the impugned order recorded that the
proceedings under Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act( the tenancy Act for short) was initiated 29 years
after the name of respondent No.4 herein was entered in the revenue
record in the year 1963, as a co-tenant. Only on this ground of
gross delay, proceedings under Section 84C complaining breach of
Section 43 of the tenancy Act came to be terminated by the Tribunal.
I
see no reason to interfere. So far as factual findings of entries of
1963 and passage of 29 years before initiation of the proceedings
are concerned, there is no dispute. The Tribunal was therefore,
justified in not permitting further inquiry under Section 84C of the
tenancy Act.
Learned
advocate Shri Suthar for the petitioner however, made a strong
grievance that respondent No.4 was never tenant of the land in
question and that Mamlatdar materially erred in making observations
contrary to the record.
When
I have essentially upheld only order of Tribunal dropping 84C
proceedings on the ground noted here-in-above, grievance of the
petitioner should not survive. Nothing stated in the order in any
case is meant to decide the inter-se disputed between the parties in
the suit land.
With
these clarification, the petition is dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top