(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR) 1. Since common point is involved in all these appeals, they are taken up for hearing together with the consent of learned counsel appearing in the matters and are being disposed of accordingly by this common judgment.
2. Present appeals are directed against the order dated 28.1.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos.1020/2008, 1033/2008, 1035/2008 and 1036/2008.
3. The respondent No.1 herein initiated proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act,1948 (for short ‘the Act’) for declaring him as a tenant of agricultural lands. The land in question is located in village Balda, Taluka – Nizar, District – Surat. In all, there were four applications under Section 70(b) of the Act preferred by respondent No.1 – tenant praying for declaration that he may be declared as tenant of the said agricultural lands.
4. The appellant – landlord is admittedly residing in the State of Maharashtra in Nandurbar District. The Mamlatdar & ALT, Nizar allowed said applications preferred by the tenant by holding that tenant was lawfully cultivating the land in question. The Mamlatdar & ALT, Nizar came to the said finding of fact on the basis of the evidence recorded in the case i.e. Tenancy Case No.1 of 1986. The Mamlatdar and ALT also considered evidence of Talati-cum-Mantri, who has stated in his evidence that as per revenue record, the respondent No.1 was cultivating the land i.e. the tenant, meaning thereby that owner himself was not cultivating the land. The Mamlatdar & ALT, Nizar also recorded the evidence of the tenant to the effect that he is having agricultural equipments, bullocks and tractor etc. with him and that he was cultivating the said land since 18 to 19 years. After considering the relevant evidence, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Nizar by his order dated 10.6.1988, allowed the said applications and held that the respondent No.1 be declared as tenant.
5. It seems that initially, appeals were preferred before the Deputy Collector, who allowed the appeals filed by the appellant, against which the matters went to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) and the Tribunal set aside the order of the Deputy Collector and sent the matters back to the Deputy Collector for fresh consideration. Accordingly, all the four matters came before the Deputy Collector. After remand, the matters were re-numbered as Tenancy Appeal No.5 of 1995 and other such appeals. The Deputy Collector, Surat by his order dated 30.6.1995 allowed the said appeals and set aside the order of the Mamlatdar & ALT, Nizar on the ground that the land in question is in the State of Gujarat and therefore, the respondent No.1 cannot be a tenant in the State of Gujarat. It is also held that the respondent No.1 is not entitled to declare him as a tenant and therefore, the Deputy Collector set aside the order of the Mamlatdar & ALT, Nizar.
6. The said order of the Deputy Collector was challenged by the respondent No.1 herein before the Tribunal by way of Revision Application being Nos.142 to 145 of 1995. The Tribunal found that the Deputy Collector has not at all considered the relevant aspect of the matters and has recorded wrong statement in the judgment which shows that respondent No.1 – tenant was not holding any land in the State of Gujarat and he belongs to the State of Maharashtra. The Tribunal also found that when a visiting team visited the village, the fact was brought to their notice that even though the tenant was cultivating the land since long, his name was not entered in the revenue record by the revenue authority, may be because of the good relationship with the landlord. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the report of the visiting team is required to be accepted. The Tribunal also found that the landlord has failed to cultivate the land personally and the landlord has not led any evidence to show that any fixed labour charge was paid to the respondent No.1 for doing agricultural labour work. It was also found that the tenant was not cultivating the land under the supervision of the landlord. The Tribunal has, accordingly, found that the respondent No.1 was tenant of the land as he was cultivating land since long. Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the present appellants filed four writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.1020/2008, 1033/2008, 1035/2008 and 1036/2008 before this Court.
7. The learned Single Judge by giving cogent reasons came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no ground made out for interfering with the order of the Tribunal in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed all the SCAs filed by the present appellants, against which present LPA have been filed.
8. Learned counsel, Mr.K.M.Parikh appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has limited jurisdiction under Revision and it cannot set aside the finding of fact recorded by the Deputy Collector. He further submitted that it is true that the tenant was cultivating the land and residing in the town which is forming part of the State of Gujarat. However, according to him, he was permitted to cultivate the land as a labourer and not as a tenant. He submitted that in that view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal is required to be set aside.
9. Learned counsel, Ms.K.J.Brahmbhatt appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – tenant vehemently argued that in the instant case, the Deputy Collector has passed absolutely perfect order and no reasonable man come to such a conclusion. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly interfered with the said order in the Revision Application, as it was a clear case of mis-read of evidence.
10. Learned AGP, Ms.Krina Calla appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 supported the order of the learned Single Judge and according to her, the order of the learned Single Judge is not required interfered with in these appeals.
11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also gone through the documents forming part of these appeals.
12. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 was cultivating the land which is located in the State of Gujarat and he also resides in the State of Gujarat. In fact, the landlord is residing in the State of Maharashtra and therefore, naturally he was not in a position to cultivate the land personally. The Deputy Collector has passed absolutely perfunctory and imaginary order which is de-hors the evidence on record. It is surprising that a person, who is given powers to decide the appeal and holding the post of the Deputy Collector, has passed such an irresponsible order in which incorrect statements have been recorded. Even though it is nobody’s case that the present respondent No.1 was not cultivating the land in question which is in the State of Gujarat, the Deputy Collector has recorded incorrect statement in the judgment and he has not, in fact, considered any other evidence which the Mamlatdar and ALT has considered while passing the first order.
13. It is also not in dispute that the landlord has failed to lead any evidence to show that he was paying any fixed amount as a labour charge to the respondent No.1 – tenant treating him as an agricultural labourer. The landlord has not led any evidence to show that whether agricultural fertilizer was purchased by him at any point of time. On the contrary, the tenant has led evidence wherein he has stated that he is having bullocks and other agricultural equipments and the land in question is subjected to agricultural cultivation. Even the visiting team found out the truth that the concerned tenant was cultivating the land since many years and his name may be allowed to be entered into revenue record in the cultivator’s column.
14. The learned Single Judge has considered this aspect and by the impugned order, has dismissed the SCAs. In case where the appellate authority has mis- read the evidence or decided the matter absolutely on irrelevant considerations, the Tribunal is justified in its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with such an order. Therefore, in our view, it has been rightly done in this case. The order of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. Therefore, in our view, the appeals are absolutely without any substance. Hence, all these appeals are accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated.
(P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) (vipul) (MOHINDER PAL, J.)