A significant legal battle unfolded in the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court concerning a land ownership dispute. The case involved the descendants of the original landlord challenging the actions taken in 1963 regarding the tenant’s rights under the Bombay (Gujarat) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The State Revenue Revisional Authority (SSRD) played a crucial role in upholding the tenant’s rights as per the order dated 05.07.2018. Learn more about the details and implications of this case in this blog post.
Issue
- Proceedings under Section 32G initiated by the Agriculture Land Tribunal
- Tenant appeared and showed willingness to pay purchase price
- Tenant deposited purchase price and land vested in tenant
- No scope for ALT to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 32G
Arguments
- Learned Advocate Ms. Bhavsar represents the petitioners, descendants of the original landlord.
- In 1963, proceedings under Section 32G of the Bombay (Gujarat) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 were initiated.
- The tenant expressed no interest in purchasing the land, leading to termination of tenancy and restoration of the land to the landlord.
- The order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in 1963 indicated the land vested with the landlord.
- Private respondents are deemed not entitled to challenge the proceedings after a significant delay.
- Learned AGP submitted that the proceedings under Section 32G were initiated in 1958 with the predecessor of private respondents paying the purchase price and being granted the land.
- Further proceedings in 2014 sought to change the tenure of the land from restricted to unrestricted for agricultural purposes, which was granted.
- AGP argued that a fresh Section 32G proceeding in 1963 was unnecessary since the land had already been granted in 1958.
- Private respondents’ Advocate argued that the land remained with them since 1958 and the delay in discovering the 1963 order was reasonable.
- SSRD entertained the revision application and set aside the 1963 order, which was deemed correct by AGP.
- The Tribunal’s notice under Section 32G called for interested parties to appear, record statements, and determine the purchase price of lands.
- AGP and private respondents’ Advocate vehemently opposed the present petition.
Analysis
- The order dated 30.08.1963, set aside by the SSRD, was found to be without jurisdiction and initiated without verifying any record.
- Upon issuing notice to all parties and the tenant showing willingness to purchase the land, once the price is paid as determined by the Tribunal, the land is granted to the tenant.
- Section 32G does not allow for reopening or initiating fresh proceedings for the same land once it has been granted to the tenant.
- The order dated 27.04.1958 recorded the tenant’s interest in purchasing the land and having paid the purchase price, resulting in the land vesting in the tenant.
- Therefore, any proceedings under Section 32G in 1963 were without jurisdiction and initiated without verifying the existing order of 27.04.1958.
- The order of the year 1963 was without jurisdiction and could have been challenged at any point in time.
- The order was mutated in the revenue record only in 2016, when the successors of the original tenant became aware of it.
- The successors of the original tenant immediately approached the SSRD upon becoming aware of the order in 2016.
- Initially, both the SSRD and GRT claimed that the issue did not fall under their jurisdiction.
- Upon direction from the Court, the SSRD decided the issue in the impugned order dated 05.07.2018.
- The Court’s considered opinion is that the SSRD’s order dated 05.07.2018 was correct and no interference is warranted.
Decision
- Order dated 05.07.2018 passed by the learned SSRD in Revision Application No 9 of 2017 confirmed.
- Present petition disposed as rejected.
Case Title: CHAVDA VIRUBA VAJESINH Vs. ZALA GOVUJI TAKHUJI
Case Number: R/SCA/15643/2018
