Petitioner has challenged an order dated 9.1.08 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.BS.96/98. By the said decision, the Tribunal was pleased to uphold the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT as well as the Deputy Collector rejecting the claim of the petitioner regarding tenancy with respect to land bearing survey No.84/5 paiki admeasuring 0 acres 35 gunthas of village Dehri, Taluka Umargam.
It appears that respondent No.4 herein applied for converting the land into NA land to which the petitioner made his objection stating that he is the tenant of the land and the land therefore cannot be granted NA permission. This objection application was referred to the Mamlatdar for inquiry under the Tenancy Act. Mamlatdar, Umargam by his order dated 16th May 1997 rejected the application finding that the petitioner had remained consistently absent on numerous occasions and no evidence on his behalf was produced.
The petitioner appealed against the order of the Mamlatdar. Deputy Collector, however, by his order dated 19th June 1998 dismissed appeal. In the appeal, the Deputy Collector observed that as per the provisions of the Tenancy Act, after 1.4.57, it is not possible to grant tenancy to the petitioner of the land which is a fragment. It was held that the original land owner had not been joined as party. Present respondent No.4 had become owner only since 2 years whereas the claim of the petitioner was that he was tenant since 1.4.57. It was also noted that the land has already been converted into NA land from 31.12.97. It was found that the petitioner has not produced any evidence on record.
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in its impugned decision concurred with the view of the lower authorities. It may be noted that present respondent No.5 was joined before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal for the first time. The Tribunal in its impugned order noted that in the application dated 10.1.97, the petitioner has not mentioned that respondent No.5 was the original owner. The petitioner claims to be the tenant since 35-40 years but has not given any details about the previous owner or transfer of land to respondent No.4. On all these grounds, the Tribunal found that the revision application cannot be entertained.
I see no reason to take a different view. Quite apart from the fact that the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar to which there may be some explanation, even other wise I find that the petitioner is unable to disclose any basis for asserting his tenancy rights. As recorded by the authorities, respondent No.4 had purchased the land only a couple of years before the petitioner asserted his tenancy rights. In fact, as per the petitioner, he was cultivating the land as tenant since 35-40 years. He had, however, not joined the original land owner in the proceedings right upto the stage of the Deputy Collector. Only before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, for the first time, he joined respondent No.5, original land owner. At no stage, he had set any case of enjoying tenancy rights qua the land granted by respondent No.5.
Considering all these aspects as also considering that in the meantime the land has already been converted into NA land since 1997, I see no reason to interfere. The petition is therefore, dismissed.
(Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn) Top