Subsequently on December 24, 1958, the record of the proceedings called for was received by the Collector.
But the point in issue is whether the Collector had in the circumstances the power to revise the Mahalkaris order under S. 76 A. Now, S. 76 A provides as follows Where numberappeal has been filed within the period provided for it, the Collector may, suo motu or on a reference made in this behalf by the Divisional Officer or the State Government, at any time, a call for the record of any enquiry or the proceedings of any Mamlatdar or Tribunal for the purpose of any order passed by, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such Mamlatdar or Tribunal, as the case may be, and b pass such order thereon as he deems fit Provided that numbersuch record shall be called for after the expiry of one year from the date of such order and numberorder of such Mamlatdar or Tribunal shall be modified, annulled or reversed unless opportunity has been given to the interested parties to appear and be heard.
On March 28, 1957 respondent No.
The Collector thus upheld and companyfirmed the Mahalkaris order.
1 on March 24, 1959 was dismissed by the Tribunal on February 23, 1961.
227 of the Constitution to set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the Collector.
On December 25, 1956 respondent No.
On or about August 14, 1958 the Collector called for the records from the Mahalkari, but the records did number reach the office of the Collector until December 24, 1958.
Section 34 of Bombay Act XXXVIII of 1957 provided that the aforesaid amendment of s. 32 shall be deemed to have been made and should have companye into force on the date on which the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Amendment Act, 1955 came into force.
On August 14, 1958, the Collector acting under s. 76A called for the record of the ejectment proceedings before the Mamlatdar.
428 to 430 and 432 to 436 of 1961.
All these orders were passed by the Collector in the exercise of his suo motu power of revision.
1 with drew the application under s. 29 read with s. 31 filed on March 28, 1957.
But on March 1, 1958, the appellant was number a tenant and companysequently he companyld number then claim the benefit of S. 32 and become the purchaser of the lands.
As from the date of the order, the appellant ceased to be a tenant within the meaning of s. 32 read with s. 2 18 he was neither a person lawfully cultivating the lands, number a person who held the lands on lease and neither a protected tenant number a permanent tenant.
By an order dated December 25, 1957 the Mahalkari allowed respondent No 1s application under s. 29 read with s. 14 filed on July 10, 1957, and directed that the tenancy be terminated and possession of the lands be delivered to.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and orders dated November 4/5, 1963 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos.
The bar takes within its sweep all applications filed on and after April 1, 1957 whether or number such an application was pending on September 22, 1957 numberexception is made in favour of applications filed between April 1 and September 22, 1957 and pending on September 22, 1957.
Three successive sets of such applications had been made by the tenants.
On February 17, 1959, the Collector acting under s. 76 A reversed the Mahalkaris order, and directed that possession of the disputed lands be restored to the appellant.
The subsequent order dated February 17, 1959 reopening the matter was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction.
The landlord then moved the Revenue Tribunal in revision to set aside the Collectors order of February 17, 1959 but his applications were dismissed.
The appellant applied to the Collector of Baroda on, August 9, 1958 and again on August 26, 1958 under s. 76 A for revision of the Mahalkaris order dated December 25, 1957.
On November 7, 1958, the local Congress Committee passed a resolution stating that the tenants were being subjected to harassment and demanding that justice be done to them.
On May 1, 1956, respondent No.
On or about October 3, 1958 the Collector rejected these revision applications, On October 6, 1958 the appellant again applied to the Collector for revision of the Mahalkaris order, but this application also was disposed of by the Collector on October 17, 1958.
It is said that the letter of the Collector dated October 17, 1958 was only an intimation of the previous rejection, but we think, though the, point is number important, it amounted to an order of rejection of the application made on October 6, 1958.
The Act does number empower the Collector to review an order passed by him under s. 76 In the absence of any power of review, the Collector companyld number subsequently reconsider his previous decisions and hold that there were grounds for annulling or reversing the Mahalkaris order.
791 798 of 1964.
Now, the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Amendment Act, 1955 came into force on August 1, 1956.
The High Court ought to have quashed the order of the Collector dated February 17, 1959 on this ground.
These orders as also the previous order calling for the record companyld be passed by the Collector only in the exercise of his revisional power under s. 76 A. As he refused to modify, annual or reverse the order of the Mahalkari, he companyld pass these orders without issuing numberice to the respondent No.
However, on February 17, 1959, the Collector purported to reverse and set aside the Mahalkaris order.
These orders passed by the Collector in the exercise of his revisional powers were quasi judicial, and were final.
They were rightly set aside by the Collector and the Tribunal.
Consequently, the application filed on July 10, 1957, though pending on September 22, 1957, was number maintainable and ought to have been dismissed by the Mahalkari.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Thereafter on March 1, 1958, the landlord withdrew his applications for ejectment pursuant to the numberice under s. 31.
An application for revision preferred by respondent No.
On November 7, 1958, the local Congress Mandal Samiti passed a resolution requesting the Collector to reconsider his previous orders.
1 on June 15, 1961 was allowed by the High Court on November 5, 1963.
Subsequently, on March 1, 1958 after the time provided for filing an appeal from the order had expired, respondent No.
By S. 79, the appeal companyld be filed within 60 days from the date of the order.
On March 1, 1958, respondent No.
On March 28, 1957 the landlord filed applications against the tenants before the Mamlatdar for ejectment under s. 29 on the strength of the numberice under s. 31 and thereafter on July 10, 1957, he filed another set of applications for their ejectment on the strength of the numberice under s. 14.
1 gave a, numberice to the appellant under s. 14 terminating the tenancy.
The High Court held that the Collector had the power to make the order of February 17, 1959 but it took the view that the amended s. 32 did number govern the ejectment proceedings on the ground that that section companyld number affect applications which were pending on the date the amending Act came into force.
As there was a separate application to the High Court by the landlord against each of the eight tenants, we have number eight appeals before us.
In the meantime however, on August 26, 1958 the tenants made the second set of applications under s. 76A. On October 3 and 4, 1958, the Collector appears to have made orders purporting to reject both sets of the tenants applications under s. 76A. On or about October 6, 1958, the tenants preferred a joint application under s. 76A and this was also rejected by the Collector on October 17, 1958.
They companytend that in view of a certain amendment of S. 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, these orders were illegal and had rightly been set aside by the Collector under s. 76A of that Act.
227 of the Constuitution preferred by respondent No.
He did number specifically deal with the point as to the number maintainability of the application for eviction in view of the amended s. 32, as the point was number taken either before him or before the Mahalkari.
A companyy of this resolution was sent to the Collector on November 10, 1958.
respondent No.
On July 10, 1957, respondent No.
SARKAR J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.
The first set of applications was made on August 4, 1958.
N. Shroff, for the appellants in all the appeals S. Patwardhan and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondents in all the appeals .
An application under Art.
On December 25, 1956, the landlord had given a fresh numberice to the tenants under s. 31.
As a result of the withdrawal, that application stood finally disposed of and rejected.
1 withdrew the pending application for eviction filed by him on March 28, 1957.
The Judgment of RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and BACHAWAT JJ.
But by his order dated December 25, 1957, the Mahalkari allowed the application.
The order of the Mahalkari under S. 29 was passed on December 25, 1957 and was appealable under S. 74.
1 filed another application under s. 29 read with,, s. 14 for the same relief.
The record did number arrive till December 24, 1958.
The appellant number appeals to this Court by special leave.
was delivered by BACHAWAT J. Sarkar J. The appellants are tenants against whom orders for ejectment had been passed at the instance of the landlord.
A companyy of the resolution was sent to the Collector.
1 was the landlord and the appellant was the tenant of the disputed lands.
The Collector thereafter gave numberice to the parties, heard them and made an order on February 17, 1959 setting aside the Mamlatdars orders of ejectment on the ground that in view of the provisions of s. 32 as amended by Act XXXVIII of 1957 the tenants companyld number be evicted.
On November 14, 1958, the appellant again applied to the Collector under s. 76 A for revision of the Mahalkaris order.
There were eight tenants and each of them has filed an appeal.
On the merits, the landlord had companytended in the High Court that s. 32 as amended by Act XXXVIII of 1957, which came into force on September 28, 1957, was number applicable to the ejectment proceedings.
1 gave another numberice to the appellant under s. 31 terminating the tenancy.
He, thereafter, applied to the High Court under Art.
The Collector observed that the appellant had number paid rent for three companysecutive years, and his tenancy had been duly terminated by the requisite numberice and the findings of the Mahalkari on these points had number been challenged by a regular appeal.
This order of the Mahalkari, though erroneous, was an order of a companypetent tribunal terminating the tenancy and directing delivery of possession of the lands to the landlord.
By these orders, the Collector decided that there was numberground for interference with the Mahalkaris order.
The tenants did number file any appeal against the Mamlatdars orders of ejectment but moved the Collector under s. 76A of the Act for setting them aside.
The High Court allowed these applications and hence the present appeals by the tenants.
The section saves all applications pending on April 1, 1957, but by necessary implication, it bars all applications filed on and after April 1, 1957.
If this order of reversal stood, the position would be that the order for eviction had never existed, and the appellant had never ceased to be a tenant, and had become a purchaser on the postponed date, i.e. on March 1, 1958.
1 filed an application under s. 29 read with s. 31 for recovery of possession of the lands.
