Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1932/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1932 of 2009
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13029 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 10527 of 2009
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1932 of 2009
=================================================
RAJESHKUMAR
SHANKARLAL - Appellant(s)
Versus
MAMLATDAR
& KRUSHI PANCH & 2 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MS
FARHANA Y MANSURI for Appellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4,
1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3,1.3.4 MR LIYAKAT I MEHTA for Appellant(s) :
1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3,1.3.4
MR AJ
DESAI, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 2
None for
Respondent(s) : 3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7,
3.2.8, 3.2.9,3.2.10
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 07/05/2010
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
This
appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge
dated 24.6.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No. 13029 of
2008. The appellants are the original petitioners. Before the
learned Single Judge, they had challenged the judgment and order
dated 26.2.2007 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision
Application No. TEN/BA/1481/84.
2. The
issue pertains to tenancy rights claimed by the petitioner over the
suit lands. The issue after one round of litigation was remitted to
the Revenue Tribunal for reconsideration by the High Court. Upon
reconsideration, by judgment and order dated 26.2.2007, the revision
application was allowed. The orders passed by the Mamlatdar &
ALT and the Deputy Collector holding the present
appellants as the tenants of the suit lands were set aside. This
decision was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned
Single Judge by the impugned order found that the Tribunal has
considered the questions of fact and applied correct principles and
the learned Single Judge, therefore, was of the opinion that no
interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was
called for. It is this decision which is impugned before us in the
present Letters Patent Appeal.
3. Having
heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the
materials on record, we find that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal had
made detailed analysis of the evidence on record. After considering
the materials, the Tribunal found that the case of the appellants
with respect to the tenancy of the suit lands cannot be accepted.
The learned Single Judge also perused the materials and took into
consideration the orders passed by various authorities and in
particular the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and came to the
conclusion that the decision of the Revenue Tribunal suffered from no
infirmity.
4. In
particular, it was found that the Mamlatdar & ALT as well as the
Deputy Collector had relied on certain affidavits, original of which
were not on record. The Tribunal found that the same cannot form the
basis for giving a valid finding in favour of the appellant. The
Tribunal also found that such evidence would not be reliable.
5. When
the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal came to the factual findings and the
learned Single Judge found no error in such factual findings, in
exercise of the appellate powers, we see no reason to interfere with
the same. The Tribunal examined various materials and found that the
appellant had not established tenancy rights over the land in
question. We see no error having been committed by the learned Single
Judge and having found no infirmity in the impugned judgment, we
dismiss the appeal. Consequently, the Civil Application is also
dismissed.
[S.
J. MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.]
[AKIL
KURESHI, J.]
sundar/-
Top