: (Per G.D. Kamat, C.J.) We have heard Shri K.D. Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant in this Appeal. This appeal challenges the order of the learned single Judge, summarily rejecting Special Civil Application No.7077 of 1996, dated 18th September, 1996. The respondents initiated proceedings under Section 70-B read with Section 29(1) and Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Mamlatdar, on appreciation of evidence, held that the respondents, who are the heirs of the original tenant, by name Dhiraji Laluji, being the `Protected Tenant', have become "deemed purchasers" by virtue of their being in actual cultivation of the land as on 1st of April, 1957. The attempt on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Section 40 was inserted in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, by virtue of Amendment Act No.13 of 1956 and since the original protected tenant had died before 1956, the tenancy could not have been deemed to have continued in favour of the respondents.
It is common ground that after the Mamlatdar rendered his findings that the tenancy has continued in favour of the respondents, the appellant preferred an appeal, which he lost. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate court, the appellant preferred a revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal also rejected the revision application. The three authorities under the Act of 1948 have rendered findings in favour of the respondents. This Court, in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate evidence. In any event, the respondents were in cultivation of the fields even after the death of the original protected tenant continuously and this being the position, the question of appellant claiming any right under Section 40 does not arise. Hence, no interference is called for and the Appeal is dismissed.
25th September, 1996( G.D. Kamat, C.J. ) ( C.K. Thakkar, J. ) ******* (apj)