IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 27223 of 2007 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
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 ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= PATEL AMBALAL SHANKARBHAI & 4 - Petitioner(s) Versus PATEL GANESHBHAI MOHANBHAI & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR KEYUR VYAS for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 5. MR VM PANCHOLI for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. MR TRILOK J PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1, MR AS PARASRAMPURIA for Respondent(s) : 2, None for Respondent(s):3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5,3.2.6–4 MS NISHA THAKORE AGP for Respondent(s) : 4.
========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Date : 04/12/2012 CAV JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr.Keyur Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.V.M. Pancholi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr.A.S. Parasrampuria, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3/1 to 3/6 and Ms.Nisha Thakore, learned A.G.P. for respondent No.4.
2. As the matter is pending for admission since 2007, parties were heard at length and the same is taken up for final disposal, with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged order dated 19.06.2006 passed by the Mamlatdar, ALT, Mehsana, order dated 10.08.2006 passed by the Deputy Collector, Mehsana confirming the order of Mamlatdar, ALT and order 31.07.2007 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal confirming both the above orders.
4. The facts which can be culled out from the record of the petition are as under:-
4.1. One Shri Mohanbhai Patel was an agriculturist and was tilling the land bearing Survey No.1562 situated at Mehsana belonging to Shri Nyejmohmed Dadenkhan since the year 1947-48. It appears that name of Shri Mohanbhai Patel appeared in the revenue records being tiller of the land in question. It transpires from the record of the petition that said Shri Mohanbhai Patel had four sons and two daughters. Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are the grandsons and petitioner No.5 is the daughter-in-law of late Shri Mohanbhai Patel whereas, respondent No.1 is the son of Shri Mohanbhai Patel, respondent No.2 is the daughter and respondent Nos.3/1 to 3/6 are the heirs of deceased – Narmadaben i.e. the daughter of late Shri Mohanbhai Patel. It appears that late Shri Mohanbhai Patel, as per the death certificate (at Annexure-B to the petition), expired on 09.04.1956 and after the death of Shri Mohanbhai, name of respondent No.1-Patel Ganeshbhai Mohanbhai came to be mutated in the revenue records vide Entry No.1405 dated 28.02.1957.
4.2. By virtue of provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, the 'Act'), respondent No.1, being tiller of the land in question on the tillers day, became deemed purchaser of the land in question. It appears that thereafter, the Mamlatdar, ALT initiated the proceedings under Section 32-G of the Act. It appears that the statements of respondent No.1 as well as the original landlord- Shri Nyejmohmed were recorded by the Mamlatdar, ALT on 05.09.1958 and by order dated 05.09.1958, the Mamlatdar, ALT was pleased to fix the purchase price in favour of respondent No.1. It appears that the purchase price so fixed being Rs.2611.25 ps. was paid by respondent No.1 in two installments i.e. on 04.11.1959 and 28.06.1960. It further appears that on the basis of order dated 05.09.1958, certificate in Form No.9 was given in favour of respondent No.1 on 20.11.1958. It appears that thereafter, petitioner No.4 herein i.e. Patel Govindbhai Purshottamdas challenged order dated 05.09.1958 by filing appeal under Section 74 of the Act being Tenancy Appeal No.110/2005 before the Deputy Collector, Mehsana in the year 2005. The said appeal was filed after a span of 47 years which came to be dismissed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Mehsana vide order dated 22.09.2005. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner No.4 herein preferred Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal which came to be registered as Revision Application No.TEN/BA/445/2005. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 27.03.2006, was pleased to dismiss the said Revision Application on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. As noted above, order dated 05.09.1958 came to be challenged only by petitioner No.4 has been confirmed upto the Tribunal. It is pertinent to note that after the said order was passed, the present petitioners filed an application under Section 70(b) of the Act before the Mamlatdar, ALT wherein, they inter alia claimed that they are also the tenants of the land in question. The Mamlatdar & ALT, Mehsana, vide order impugned dated 19.06.2006 was pleased to dismiss the said application.
4.3. Being aggrieved by said order dated 19.06.2006 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Mehsana, the petitioners herein have filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Mehsana under Section 74 of the Act which came to be registered as Tenancy Appeal No.51 of 2006. The Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Mehsana vide impugned order dated 10.08.2006 was pleased to dismiss the said appeal and confirm order dated 19.06.2006 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners herein have filed Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal which came to be registered as Revision Application No.TEN/BA/368/2006. The Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 31.07.2007, was pleased to dismiss the said Revision Application and confirmed the orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Mehsana as well as the Mamlatdar & ALT, Mehsana.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the present petition is filed.
6. Mr.Keyur Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is an admitted position that the land in question was tilled by Shri Mohanbhai, who was the ancestral of the petitioners and, therefore, respondent No.1- Ganeshbhai has no exclusive right to become the tenant. Mr.Vyas, learned counsel contended that even in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar & ALT, respondent No.1-Ganeshbhai has made a false statement whereby, he has stated that he was tilling the land since 24 years. Mr.Vyas, learned counsel relying upon the date of birth of respondent No.1, being 23.04.1937, contended that the statement of respondent No.1 is false. Mr.Vyas, learned counsel submitted that only because Form-9 was issued in the name of respondent No.1, he cannot take away the right of the petitioners being lineal decedents of Shri Mohanbhai, though as per the evidence, the land in question was actually tilled by Shri Mohanbhai. Mr.Vyas, learned counsel submitted that it is also clear from the order passed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act that the petitioners and predecessor of respondent No.1 had joint business in partnership under the name and style of M/s.Jay Ganesh Transport Company. Mr.Vyas, learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the business as well as the properties were the joint family properties. Mr.Vyas, learned counsel submitted that only by way of formal establishment, name of respondent No.1-Ganeshbhai was proposed as a tenant, which was joint family property. Mr.Vyas, learned counsel submitted that under the provisions of Section 32(1)(b) of the Act, as Mohanbhai was tilling the land in question till he died, respondent No.1 was holding possession for and on behalf of family members and, on the sad demise of Shri Mohanbhai, tenancy rights should devolve upon all the four sons. Mr.Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that the authorities below, more particularly, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has ignored such vital facts. Mr.Vyas, learned counsel, in order to buttress his arguments, has relied upon the following judgments:-
“(i) S.N. Sudalaimuthu Chettiar V/s. Palaniyandavan reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 469;
(ii) Shankerbhai Kanjibhai (Decd) through his legal heirs Vedubhai Shankerbhai Patel V/s. Dagdubhai Govindbhai reported in 1992(1) GLR 157;
(iii) Babubhai Bhagwanji Mehta and ors. V/s. State of Gujarat-Spl. Secretary (Appeals) and ors. reported in 2004(1) GLR 532 and;
(iv) Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and ors. V/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2008(1) GLH 749.”
7. Mr.Vyas, learned counsel submitted that thus, the valuable right of the petitioners cannot be taken away merely on the ground of limitation. He, therefore, submitted that the matter is meritorious and the same requires consideration and also deserves to be allowed.
8. Per contra, Mr.Vipul Pancholi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has supported the orders passed by the authorities below. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel has made oral submissions and also filed written submissions. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel relying upon the factual matrix of the matter submitted that originally, father of respondent No.1-Shri Mohanbhai Patel was tilling the land in question belonging to one Nyejmohmed Dadenkhan. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that name of respondent No.1-Ganeshbhai came to be mutated by mutation Entry No.1405 dated 28.02.1957 as a tenant and, by virtue of amendment in the Tenancy Act, respondent No.1 become deemed purchaser of the land in question. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that the Mamlatdar & ALT initiated proceedings as contemplated under Section 32-G of the Act and vide order dated 05.09.1958, the Mamlatdar & ALT was pleased to fix the purchase price in favour of respondent No.1 and upon payment of such a price so fixed, the authorities issued certificate in Form-9 on 20.11.1958 and accordingly, entries were mutated in the revenue records. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that the father of respondent No.1-Mohanbhai expired on 09.04.1956 and amendment in Section 40 of the Tenancy Act came into effect from 01.08.1956. It is contended by learned counsel Mr.Pancholi that the name of respondent No.1 was entered in his individual capacity and not as son of late Shri Mohanbhai Patel. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that the tenancy appeal was filed after 47 years before the Deputy Collector, Mehsana and that too, only by petitioner No.4 and the same has been culminated into order dated 22.09.2005 passed by the Deputy Collector, Mehsana which was confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 27.03.2006. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that in the first round of litigation, only petitioner No.4 was interested and none of the petitioners have filed any appeal. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that however, the petitioners have thereafter, filed application under Section 70(b) of the Act which has been rightly rejected by Mamlatdar & ALT vide order dated 19.06.2006 which was confirmed in Appeal vide order dated 10.08.2006 and both the said orders have been confirmed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 31.07.2007. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in both the rounds of litigation, there are concurrent findings and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed and it is not a fit case for exercising supervisory jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Yunus V/s. Mohd. Mustaqim and others reported in AIR 1984 SC 38, contended that powers to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are of a limited scope and the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal and that it will not review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the orders are passed by the inferior Court or the Tribunal. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel also relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and others V/s. Manoj Kumar reported in (2010)4 SCC 350 as well as in case of Mathai Alias Joby V/s. George and another reported in (2010)4 SCC 358. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that firstly, after 47 years, petitioner No.4 has challenged order dated 05.09.1958 and after the same was rejected right upto stage of revision by the Tribunal, a fresh application has been filed by all the petitioners within one year and, therefore, Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that on the ground of delay as well as on the ground of mala fide intention on the part of the petitioners, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that it is required to be noted by this Court that the brothers of respondent No.1 have not at all initiated proceedings during their lifetime. However, the present proceedings are filed only with a mala fide intention because of the price rise in the land market in or around 2005. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel further relying upon the pedigree of the family of late Shri Mohanbhai submitted that during the lifetime, heirs of Shri Mohanbhai Patel have never raised any objection even though they were aware about order dated 05.09.1958 and rights of tenancy having accrued in favour of respondent No.1. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that respondent No.1 has purchased the land in his individual capacity and has paid the price of the same. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not been able to produce any documentary evidence to show that respondent No.1 has purchased the land from the income of the joint family and, therefore, he submitted that the argument put-forth that respondent No.1 has paid the price of land as 'Karta' of the joint family is totally misconceived. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that as such, name of Shri Mohanbhai came to be deleted as tenant by mutation Entry No.1406. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankerbhai Kanjibhai (supra) is also misconceived inasmuch as Shri Mohanbhai expired on 09.04.1956 whereas, Section 40 of the Tenancy Act came to be amended and tenancy rights made heritable with effect from 01.08.1956. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel, therefore, submitted that before the aforesaid amendment came into effect, Shri Mohanbhai expired and, therefore, no benefit can be given to the petitioners. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that as such, in the facts of the present case, Shri Ganeshbhai-respondent No.1 became tenant only in his individual capacity. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that birth certificate relied upon by the petitioners is as such, produced for the first time before this Court and he also submitted that, in fact, said certificate does not reflect the correct date of birth of respondent No.1 and the same was obtained by an application given by the mother of petitioner No.4. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel relying upon the certificate produced by respondent No.1 submitted that the correct date of birth of respondent No.1 is 07.10.1935.
9. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in fact, after rejection of the proceedings initiated by petitioner No.4, said certificate has been obtained with mala fide intention and, with an ulterior motive, the same is produced for the first time before this Court. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel invited attention of this Court to the fact that the criminal proceedings are also initiated by respondent No.1 against Galbiben Parshottambhai and Patel Purshottambhai by filing Criminal Case No.9386 of 2010 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana under Sections 463, 468,469,471,323,504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have also made an attempt to misguide this Court by relying upon the assessment order for the assessment year 1977-78 of the Income Tax Department. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel also submitted that there was a partnership in the name of M/s.Jay Ganesh Transport Company wherein, respondent No.1 was one of the partners along with his brothers. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.1, it is stated that the said partnership firm was started in the year 1974 and dissolved in the year 1978 and, therefore, it cannot be said that in the year 1958, there was partnership firm and purchase price was paid from the joint family business. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel submitted that the petition is thoroughly misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed.
10. Ms.Nisha Thakore, learned A.G.P. submitted that respondent No.4 is a formal party.
11. On consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and as is revealed from the record of the petition as well as the orders impugned before this Court, the land in question, which originally belonged to one Shri Nyejmohmed Dadenkhan, was tilled by the father of the respondent No.1-Shri Mohanbhai. It is also evident from the record of the petition that Shri Mohanbhai died on 09.04.1956 and thereafter, respondent No.1 continued to till the land in question. It transpires from the record that the competent authority i.e. the Mamlatdar & ALT, Mehsana initiated proceedings under the Tenancy Act and, after recording statements of respondent No.1 as well as the original owner, declared respondent No.1-Ganeshbhai as tenant and fixed the purchase price which has been paid by respondent No.1, receipt of which is found at Annexure-F to the petition and on the basis of which, certificate in Form-9 was issued in the name of respondent No.1-Ganeshbhai vide order dated 05.09.1958. It is pertinent to note that the present petitioners are the heirs of one of the brothers of respondent No.1-Ganeshbhai. It clearly reveals from the record that order dated 05.09.1958 came to be challenged after 47 years by way of filing Tenancy Appeal No.110 of 2005 that too by petitioner No.4 only, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.09.2005 which was confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 27.03.2006 dismissing the revision application. After the said order, as observed above, wherein only petitioner No.4 was a party, the petitioners filed an application as provided under Section 70(b) of the Act which has been examined by the Mamlatdar & ALT in Tenancy Case No.70(b)/9/2006.
12. On perusal of order dated 19.06.2006, it is found that the Mamlatdar & ALT, after considering all the relevant aspects, has come to the conclusion that respondent No.1 herein was declared to be the tenant in his individual capacity and even the name of respondent No.1 has been mutated in the revenue records in his individual capacity. The Mamlatdar & ALT has also come to the conclusion that the present petitioners claiming tenancy in joint is without any basis and was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the present petitioners under Section 70(b) of the Act. The said order was examined by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Mehsana in Appeal filed by the present petitioners and the Deputy Collector has confirmed the said order by recording that the claim under Section 70(b) of the Act was raised by the petitioners after 47 years. The said order was carried by the petitioners by way of Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the Tribunal has confirmed both the said orders by dismissing the Revision Application. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is specifically noted that the learned counsel for the petitioners agreed that present respondent No.1 was not the 'Karta' of the family but was declared to be the tenant in his individual capacity. The Tribunal has also recorded that late Shri Mohanbhai expired on 09.04.1956 i.e. before 01.08.1956. Apart from the facts, the Tribunal has also considered that all the heirs of late Shri Mohanbhai are not even made parties to the proceedings.
13. Mr.Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.N. Sudalaimuthu Chettiar V/s. Palaniyandavan reported in AIR 1966 SC 469 and contended that from the very initiation, the deposition given by respondent No.1 is erroneous. On perusal of the deposition of respondent No.1- “that I am the father and tilling the land since about last 24 years” - considering his age, it cannot be believed that respondent No.1 has contributed anything by physical labour in actual cultivation. Reliance placed by the petitioners on the photocopy of the birth certificate of respondent No.1 showing that his date of birth being 23.04.1937 and, in 1958, the statement made that he is cultivating with his father since 24 years, is wrong. Apart from the fact that such a certificate is brought on record for the first time before this Court, this Court finds that the Deputy Collector in his order dated 10.08.2006 has recorded that the birth date of respondent No.1 is 07.10.1935. The interpretation put-forth by the petitioners to the deposition made by the respondent No.1 is far-fetched and the fact remains that the father of respondent No.1 was tilling the land in question since last 24 years and as respondent No.1 has been examined during the proceedings of tenancy, he was found to be tilling the land in question on that day. The case is also supported by the deposition of the landlord, who has stated in his deposition that late Shri Mohanbhai was tilling the land in question as tenant since 24 years. Even in the first round of litigation, as narrated in this judgment, the claim that the tenancy rights were acquired by respondent No.1 as karta of the joint family, late Shri Mohanbhai, is not proved and nothing is there on record of this petition or an iota of evidence even in the revenue records to establish that respondent No.1 was declared a tenant as Karta of the family. The factum is that the petitioners, who are the heirs of one of the sons of late Shri Mohanbhai, did not raise any claim for 47 years and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of S.N.
Sudalaimuthu Chettiar (Supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case. Mr.Vyas, learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2008(1) GLH 749 to buttress his argument that word ‘person’ would include definition of person or ‘body of individuals’ and a Hindu Undivided Family, is also not applicable to the facts of this case and, as observed above, the contention that it is Hindu Undivided Family, is without any basis. Mr.Vyas, learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Babubhai Bhagwanji Mehta and Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat, Spl. Secretray (Appeals) and Ors. reported in 2004(1) GLR 532 to make an attempt to contend that there was no delay as the petitioners were not aware. As far as the present case is concerned, petitioner No.4 has challenged the same in the earlier proceedings and on the contrary, it is the case of the petitioners themselves that they were doing business in partnership. It is an admitted position that the petitioners and respondents are the members of one family and, therefore, it cannot be believed and it is not even pleaded before the authorities that for want of knowledge, the petitioners could not prefer the proceedings in time. The contention in this regard raised by Mr.Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be rejected.
14. Mr.Pancholi, learned counsel for the private respondents has rightly contended that jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised where, it is found that orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice.
15. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others V/s. Manoj Kumar reported in (2010)4 SCC 350 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:-
20. This Court again clearly reiterated the legal position in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi. The Court again cautioned that: (SCC pp.579- 80, para 9) “9. ... The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.”
21. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Rena Drego v. Lalchand Soni again abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court of the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and reappreciating it.
22. In Virendra Kashinath Ravat v. Vinayak N. Joshi this Court held that the limited power under Article 227 cannot be invoked except for ensuring that the subordinate courts function within its limits.
23. This Court over 50 years has been consistently observing that limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with the findings of fact and set aside the judgments of the courts below on merit.
24. According to the appellants, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the findings of fact of the courts below. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the High Court is totally unsustainable.”
16. Similarly, in the case of Jai Singh and others V/s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another reported in (2010)9 SCC 385, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:-
“15. We have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel. Before we consider the factual and legal issues involved herein, we may notice certain well- recognised principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly the High Court, under this article, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well- established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well-known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well- recognised constraints. It can not be exercised like a “bull in a china shop”, to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.
16. The High Court cannot lightly or liberally act as an appellate court and reappreciate the evidence. Generally, it can not substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions reached by the courts below or the statutory/quasi-judicial tribunals. The power to reappreciate evidence would only be justified in rare and exceptional situations where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. The exercise of such discretionary power would depend on the peculiar facts of each case, with the sole objective of ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice.
17. In our opinion, the High Court in this case, has travelled beyond the limits of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Both the ARC and ARCT had acted within the limits of the jurisdiction vested in them. The conclusions reached cannot be said to be based on no evidence. All relevant material has been taken into consideration. Therefore, there was hardly any justification for the High Court to undertake an investigation into the issues which did not even arise in the lis.”
17. In view of the aforesaid binding decisions, this Court finds that the concurrent findings arrived at by the authorities below do not warrant any interference of this Court in its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
18. On the contrary, this Court finds that order dated 05.09.1958 came to be challenged after 47 years which was confirmed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) in Appeal and also by the Tribunal in Revision Application. As noted above, the said proceedings were initiated after 47 years only by petitioner No.4 herein and as petitioner No.4 failed, the present petitioners again initiated proceedings by referring to the provisions of Section 70(b) of the Act. This Court finds that the authorities have discussed the evidence on record and arrived at the conclusion as above. This Court also find no error in the concurrent findings of all the three authorities.
respondents were working in partnership firm in the name and style of M/s.Jay Ganesh Transport Company, there was existence of Hindu Undivided Family, is wholly unbelievable. It appears that the said firm came to be dissolved. Only because two brothers are in a business together would not constitute Hindu Undivided Family ipso facto. There is no evidence on record to establish the said fact. The authorities have considered the evidence on record and even the landlord has given a statement. It is found from the orders impugned, more particularly, as recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioners have failed to prove that there was a joint tenancy and, therefore, all the four sons of Late Shri Mohanbhai have automatically got tenancy rights as provided under Section 40 of the Act. The Tribunal has noted that even in the revenue records, name of respondent No.1 is shown to be cultivating the land in question in the year 1956-57. The Tribunal has also noted that other sons of Late Shri Mohanbhai i.e. Parshottamdas and Somabhai were alive and other brothers did not claim any tenancy. It is also worthwhile to note that Shri Shankarbhai, one of the sons of late Shri Mohanbhai, through whom, the petitioners claimed their right of tenancy, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents has expired. However, during his lifetime, he did not initiate any proceedings. Considering the fact that even criminal proceedings are initiated, as according to the private respondents, more particularly, respondent No.1 herein, false birth certificate of respondent No.1 has been produced on record, however, this Court finds that it is not necessary to deal with the same in the present
examined respondent No.1 as well as the landlord. It is also evident that the purchase price so fixed has been paid by respondent No.1 in his individual capacity and respondent No.1 was declared to be a sole tenant in his individual capacity on the basis of which, certificate under Form-9 was issued. The controversy between the parties has been examined, in fact, twice.
20. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that there is no error, much less any error of law, apparent on the face of record, which requires interference of this Court in its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as this Court finds no error in the concurrent findings arrived at by the authorities below. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
Hitesh (R.M.CHHAYA, J.)