1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24.10.2007 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, in Revision Application No. TEN.B.S.133/2003, whereby the said revision application was dismissed.
2. The short facts of the case are that the land bearing Survey No. 173 admeasuring Hec-2-31-68 is situated at Vilalge Bhestan, Tal & Dist. Surat. The respondents herein had preferred Tenancy Case No. 3/1998 before the Additional Mamlatdar & ALT (Tenancy), Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat to remove the restriction imposed u/s. 43 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act ["the Act" for short]. The Mamlatdar & ALT after considering the case as well as the record, vide order dated 29.04.1998 dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred an appeal being Tenancy Appeal No. 57/1998 before the Deputy Collector, Surat. The Deputy Collector, after hearing both parties, allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 29.04.1998 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT.
2.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred Revision Application No. TEN.B.S. 133/2003 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ["the Tribunal" for short]. The Tribunal vide order dated 24.10.2007 dismissed the said revision application. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned AGP for the petitioners and perused the documents on record. The respondents herein had filed Tenancy Case No.3/1998 before the Addl. Mamlatdar & ALT for the purpose of removing the restriction u/s.43 of the Act on the ground that they were the permanent tenants. However, the said application was rejected by order dated 29.04.1998 mainly on the ground of delay. Against the said order, the respondents had preferred appeal being Tenancy Appeal No.57/1998 before the Dy. Collector, which came to be allowed vide order dated 02.03.2000 and the respondents were declared as 'permanent tenants' and the restriction u/s.43 of the Act was lifted. Pursuant thereto, mutation entry was also recorded and certified. Thus, it is established from the record that the respondents were declared as 'permanent tenants'. Therefore, the question that now requires consideration of this Court is as to whether the restriction u/s.43 of the Act could have been imposed or not? Section 43 of the Act provides that the land purchased u/s.32 cannot be transferred without the prior sanction of the Collector concerned. However, u/s. 43(1B) of the Act, the said restriction shall not apply to a 'permanent tenant', if prior to the purchase, the permanent tenant, by usage, custom, agreement or decree of a Court, held the transferable right in the tenancy of the land.
4. Looking to the facts of the case, the provisions of Section 43(1B) of the Act would come into play and the restriction u/s.43 of the Act could not have been imposed since the respondents are 'permanent tenants' having transferable rights. In my opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality or impropriety while rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioners. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by the Tribunal in the impugned order and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
5. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top