CHAUDHARI ABHERAJ HEMRAJ Vs. COLLECTOR MEHSANA
LAWS(GJH)-1961-8-2
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on August 23,1961

CHAUDHARI ABHERAJ HEMRAJ Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR MEHSANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.M.SHELAT - (1.)This is a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the collector Mehsana in respect of an order passed by him under section 23(2) of the Mamlatdars Courts Act 1906
(2.)The petitioners case is that he was at all material time the tenant in respect of S. No. 519/3 situate in village Motidau and that his possession of that S. No. was taken away contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 by respondents 2 and 3. He therefore filed an application before the Mamlatdar Mehsana being Tenancy Application No. 69 of 1956 for a declaration that the sale of the land S. No. 519/3 by respondent No. 4 in favour of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was contrary to the provisions of sections 63 and 64 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 that the sale should be declared invalid and that possession of that land should be restored to him. The Mamlatdar made his order on the 16th of September 1957 granting the declaration asked for and directing that possession of the land in question should be handed over by respondents 2 and 3 to the petitioner. The respondents filed an appeal to the Prant Officer who confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar and being dissatisfied with that order respondents 2 and 3 filed a revision application before the Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal remanded the case to the Prant Officer directing him to give a finding whether the petitioner was a tenant in the year 1955-56 when the sale took place. The Prant Officer in his turn remanded the case to the Mamlatdar directing him to take fresh evidence under section 25A of the Act. The Mamlatdar dismissed the application of the petitioner and thereupon the petitioner went in appeal to the Prant Officer. The Prant Officer reversed the order of the Mamlatdar whereby the petitioners application was dismissed The Prant Officer gave a finding that the sale in favour of respondents 2 and 3 was illegal by virtue of the provisions of section 64 of the Act and declared that the petitioner was a tenant. He also directed that respondents 2 and 3 should hand over possession of S. No. 519/3 to the petitioner. Respondents 2 and 3 thereafter took out a Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal which by its order dated the 13th of April 1961 rejected the Revision Application and confirmed the order of the Prant Officer. The decision of the Revenue Tribunal was that the petitioner was a tenant in 1956; that there was an infringement of section 64 of the Act consequently the sale was bad and that the petitioner was entitled to possession of the land.
(3.)On April 27 1961 respondents 2 and 3 filed Special Civil Application No. 269 of 1961 in this Court against the petitioner and respondent No. 4. On May 5 1961 a rule was issued and an order of Interim injunction was granted to respondents 2 and 3 whereby the petitioner was restrained from executing the order passed by the Tribunal dated April 13 1961 It would seem that the order of injunction was served upon the petitioner on May 14 1961


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.