(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No.834 of 2011. The petition before the learned Single Judge was under Article-227 of the Constitution of India by which the appellant had challenged the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, passed in Revision Application No.12 of 1996. The Deputy Collector as well as Revenue Tribunal both came to the conclusion that the concerned respondent was cultivating the land lawfully, at the relevant point of time, and he was entitled to be declared as tenant, as per Section-32(1)(B) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The order of the Revenue Tribunal was challenged before the learned Single Judge under Article-227 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge found that the authorities have not committed any error, especially, when it is found that the name of the respondent was continued in the revenue record, at the relevant point of time. As per Sections-32(1)(B) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, if a tenant is dispossessed illegally and if he was found to be cultivating the land on the relevant date, he could approach the competent authority to declare him as a tenant and for restoring the possession. After considering the evidence on record, a finding was recorded to the effect that the respondent was cultivating the land at the relevant date, and therefore, he was entitled to got himself declared as deemed tenant. Said findings were upheld by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, in his limited jurisdiction under Article-227 of the Constitution, has not interfered with the said order.
2. Without considering the aspect, as to whether this LPA under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against an order passed by the learned Single Judge, exercising his jurisdiction under Article-227 of the Constitution of India, we have heard learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Bukhari, on merits. Learned Counsel argued that till today, the appellants are in possession of the land. It is required to be noted that in case if a tenant is dispossessed illegally, there is remedy under Section-32(1)(B) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The provisions of Section-32(1)(B) itself, contemplates a situation, where a tenant, who is cultivating a land is dispossessed, then, he is entitled to get himself declare as tenant. Hence, even if the appellants are in possession of the land today, in view of the findings of facts recorded by the fact finding authority and upheld by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any error of jurisdiction or law in the same. We do not find any substance in the appeal and the same is DISMISSED.
(P.B.
MAJMUDAR, J.) (MOHINDER PAL, J.) Umesh/ Top