Shrimati Achhuba should be persuaded to set apart these two fields as grazing area for the grazing of village cattle of Dudhakwada in order to maintain the standard as fixed by the Government.
All what he decided by his order dated November, 18, 1952 was that in view of the provisions of law the sale deed in favour of respondent number 1 was invalid.
The High Court dismissed the petition on December 18, 1957.
The respondent has filed a companynter affidavit stating that the appellant had number filed any petition or application before the Collector under s. 84 of the Act seeking his eviction.
2817 of 1955 said, in dealing with the matter about plot No.
Nagarlal Dalpatram Vyas, describing himself as a Karbhari of the appellant, states in his affidavit I personally went to the Mamlatdar of Deoda Prant Officer of Radhanpur, the Collector of Banaskantha, the Bombay Revenue Tribunal and the High Court of Gujarat, to obtain a certified companyy of the application made by the applicant herein to the Collector of Banaskantha, which resulted into his said order 24 November 1952, but I have been told that the record is number there any of those Courts or Authorities.
By this Act, s. 84A was added in the parent Act.
Thereafter the respondent number 1 preferred a writ petition before the High Court which was thus his third writ petition.
On payment of such penalty, the Mamlatdar shall issue a certificate to the transferee that such transfer is number invalid.
2220 of 1957.
The High Court set aside the order of the, Tribunal holding that s. 84A applied to the sale of plot number 260 to the appellant, that the sale was invalid by operation of law and required numberdeclaration to that effect from the Collector and that there was numberhing in s. 84 A which would justify excluding from the operation of that section transfers which had been declared invalid prior to the companying into force of that provision of law.
The respondent again went to the High Court by Special Civil Application No.
A revision application preferred against the order of the Collector was dismissed by the Revenue Tribunal.
A second writ petition was preferred by the respondent number 1 against this order but it was dismissed by the High Court.
She did appear before the Collector during his enquiry.
In the meantime, on August 1, 1956 the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Amendment Act, 1956.
35 as fine on December 9, 1957 and the same day got the order of the Mamlatdar Tenancy Aval Karkun, recognizing the sale to him of plot number 260 under the sale deed of 1950.
Thereupon he preferred a writ petition before the High Court.
The respondent took advantage of the provisions of this section, deposited Rs.
With regard to plot number 260, the Collector ordered in view of the shortage of grazing land for cattle in the village Shrimati Achhuba should be persuaded to set apart these two fields as grazing area for the grazing of village cattle of Duchakwada in order to maintain the standard as fixed by the Government.
It was stated at the hearing of the appeal that she had also applied to the Collector.
He ordered the eviction of the appellant from plot number 231 as he found that one Harijan Vira Pana, one of the applicants, was the tenant of that plot.
On November 24, 1952 the Collector, District Banaskantha, passed an order, after an enquiry on aplicacations, by certain persons of that village to the Govern ment, to him and to the Deputy Collector, Tharad, that the sale deed of the two plots was invalid in view of the provisions of ss.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order Sated July 1, 1959, of the Bombay High Court number Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.
397 of 1962.
The appellant is a jagirdar and evidently possesses companysiderable property.
231 and 260, to respondent number 1, Kalidas Harnath Ojha, hereinafter called the respondent on October 28, 1950.
None of the other orders of the Court makes any reference to the application by Bai Achhuba to the Collector, even though some of them definitely state about her application to the Mamlatdar.
When the matter went back to the Revenue Tribunal after remand it was companytended ,on behalf of the respondent number 1 that the Collector had numberjurisdiction to declare the sale to be void without passing a companysequential order under s. 84.
Where the transferee fails to pay the penalty referred to in sub section 1 within such period as may be prescribed, the transfer shall be declared by the Mamlatdar to be invalid and thereupon the provisions of sub sections 3 to 5 of section 84C shall apply.
The High Court restored the order of the Mamlatdar dated December 9, 1957 by which he had issued a certificate to the respondent that the transfer of plot number 260 was number invalid.
I was told by the Collector of Banaskantha the record of the case had gone to the Bombay High Court.
He then filed Special Civil Application No.
The High Court allowed the application on July 2, 1956 with respect to plot number 260, set aside the order of the Revenue Tribunal and remanded the dispute about that plot to be decided by the Tribunal afresh, according to law.
2220 of 1957.
The Deputy Collector set aside the order of the Mamlatdar holding that s. 84A did number apply to the sale of plot number 260 as that sale had been declared to be invalid by the Collector prior to the companying into force of s. 84A. The respondent then went in revision against this order to the Bombay Revenue Tribunal and was unsuccessful.
This was disputed by the respondent.
In the year 1956 the Act was extensively amended.
The respondent then approached the High Court of Bombay with Special Civil Application number 2817 of 1955.
The appellant, Jagirdar of village Duchakwada, sold two fields bearing Survey Nos.
If she agrees, the persons in the present occupation of the land should be evicted and the fields kept open for free grazing of village cattle.
302 and prayed for the quashing and the setting aside of the Tribunals Order.
This application was granted by the Mamlatdar.
The Collector was wrong in mentioning the two fields in the above quoted order, as one of the fields in dispute before him was field No.
Those documents included the alleged application made to the Collector and an affidavit by the appellant showing that she was a party to the proceedings before the Collector.
The order of the Revenue Tribunal dated June 3, 1957 states The original proceeding started on an application made to the Collector of Banaskantha by some villagers of Duchakwada.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
231 was leased out to a tenant, Vira Pana, while Survey No.
The respondents appeal against this order was dismissed by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal on October 27, 1955.
She did number file a certified companyy of the application said to have been presented by her to the Collector simultaneously with the other villagers.
The Revenue Tribunal treated the Collectors order to be an order under s. 84 of the Act.
302 of 1959.
231 and about which he had earlier, in his order, directed the Prant Officer to restore that field to Harijan Vira Pana immediately.
That petition having been allowed, the appellant has companye up before this Court, as already stated, by special leave.
On remand, the Tribunal again dismissed the respondents appeal on June 3, 1957.
Survey No.
It is against this order that Bai Achhuba has preferred this appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court.
231 was companycerned, remanded the matter to the Collector for deciding two points, one being whether the respondent number 1 was an agri culturist and the other whether there was a tenant on the land and if it found that there was numbertenant whether the Collector was justified in declaring the sale void under s. 63 1 .
The appellant filed companyies of certain orders of the various Courts and a companyy of the Special Civil Application No.
The High Court, in its order dated July 2, 1956 in Special Civil Application No.
B. Pai, and O.C. Mathur, for respondent No.
If she agrees, the persons in the present occupation of the land should be evicted and the fields kept open for free grazing of village cattle.
Act XIII of 1956 came into force.
260 had been reserved by her in the year 1950 for grazing cattle.
H. Sheth, Mangaldas Shah and M. V. Goswami, for the appellant.
Shortly after this happened the Collector of Banaskantha took up the matter suo motu in revision and set aside the order of the Mamlatdar.
The appellant was a party to all the proceedings subsequent to the order of the Collector dated November 24, 1952.
Possibly other cattle in the village were also allowed to graze there because of paucity of grazing facilities therein.
An application for revision preferred by the respondent number 1 before the Bombay Revenue Tribunal was dismissed by it.
was delivered by Mudholkar, J. Raghubar Dayal, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.
Seeking to avail himself of this provision the respondent number 1 made an application before the Mamlatdar, Deodar for validation of the transfer in his favour.
LXVII of 1948 hereafter referred to as the Act.
While he was occupying that position he obtained from her a sale deed on October 31, 1950, in respect of both these fields.
The appellant was admittedly the owner of Survey Nos.
The Judgment of K. Subba Rao and J.R. Mudholkar, JJ.
231 and 260 of the village Duchakwada, Taluka Deodar, District Banaskantha in the State of Gujarat.
MUDHOLKAR J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay allowing a writ application preferred before it by the first respondent and setting aside the order of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal which had upheld the order of the Prant Officer in a matter arising under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Bom.
December 6, 1963.
The respondent number 1 was for some time her karbhari manager of her estate .
L. Hathi for R.H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
The Collectors order makes numbermention of any application by the appellant and states that certain persons of village Duchakwada, among whom were agriculturists and tenants of Duchakwada Jagir, had made applications praying that the 1/SCI 64 55 sale deed be declared void and the village records companyrected accordingly.
We are number number companycerned with this order with respect to plot number 231.
The amendment came into force in August, 1956.
The matter was companysidered to be of some importance in view of the respondents companytention that the previous orders on the application of the villagers operated as res judicata, and this Court ordered the appellant, on March 19, 1963 to file certified companyies of the various documents mentioned in that order.
According to the appellant she received numberconsideration for the transaction.
On this material, I am number satisfied that the appellant had applied to the Government or the Collector simultaneously with the other villagers on whose applications the Collector made an enquiry and passed the order of November 24, 1952.
