The Gujarat Government by its numberification dated July .19, 1960 delegated its functions under Section 63 of the Act to the Commissioners.
The State Government agreed with the recommendation and directed the Commissioner, Rajkot Division to call upon the girasdars to show cause why the two orders in question should number be cancelled.
As against that order this appeal has been brought on the strength of the certificate issued by the Gujarat High Court.
The respondent, his brother and their uncle made separate applications to the Special Mamlatdar, Gondal on November 25, 1951 under Section 19 of the Act for allotment of a separate gharkhed to each of them.
The tenants opposed the applications on the ground that the family of the girasdars was still joint and therefore, the respondent, his brother and his uncles were only entitled to joint gharkhed.
But on September 4, 1956, they filed applications to the Saurashtra Government under Sub section 2 of Section 63 of the Act to set aside the orders of the Special Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector.
If the family is held to be undivided then that family as a unit can get one gharkhed land but if that family is held to be divided on the date the Act came into force each one of the divided branches is entitled to get separate gharkheds.
The Mahalkari by his order dated December 21, 1957 held that the family had separated and that the girasdars were entitled to separate gharkheds.
After this order was passed Jesang, the uncle of the respondent appears to have settled his dispute with his tenants and the order made by Mahalkari in his petition became final.
Thereafter on May 24, 1958, the tenants filed a revision petition to the State Government of Bombay as the State of Saurashtra bad been merged in the State of Bombay by that time.
The Mamlatdar by his order dated July 4, 1952 held that the family was joint.
The Special Mamlatdar recorded further evidence and by his order dated October 19, 1954 he again held that the family was joint.
But in the applications made by his nephews, the tenants appealed to the District Deputy Collector but their appeal was rejected by him on February 25, 1958.
The Tribunal by its order dated April 29, 1958 rejected the revision application taking the view that it had numberjurisdiction to entertain them as the matter had earlier been companysidered by the State Government.
At this stage it may be numbered that by the time the Government came to make those orders the office of the Special Mamlatdar had been abolished and his jurisdiction had been transferred to Mahalkari, Kotdasanghani.
Hence Mr. Mankodi, the then Commissioner of Rajkot, took up the matter for companysideration.
The Government set aside the orders of the Special Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector and remanded the cases to Mahalkari, Kotdasanghani to rehear and decide the cases on merits.
Arjunsinghji died in or about 1945 leaving behind his two sons Pradyumansinghji and Balwantsinhji.
The case of the respondent and his brother was that the giras had been divided between their father and their two uncles sometime in 1938 though Rajkam in that respect was executed only on October 20, 1950.
One Jethaji was the girasdar holding a giras estate known as Manghani Taluka.
The Bombay Government sent down that revision petition to the Commissioner, Rajkot Division to hear the parties and to submit a report.
After the receipt of that order Mr. Monani, the then Commissioner heard the parties and recommended to the Government on September 28, 1958 to set aside the orders in question as in his opinion the order made by the Saurashtra Government on October 22, 1956 was made without the authority of law.
These applications were accepted by the Government on October 22, 1956.
Their appeal was dismissed on May 14, 1953.
Therefore the recommendation of Mr. Monani came back to the Commissioner, Rajkot Division for passing a suitable order.
The petition was heard by Mr. Shunglu who was the Commissioner of Rajkot Division at that time.
Hence if it is held that the family is a divided family, the members of that family would get more lands as gharkhed than they would be entitled to if they are held to be undivided at the relevant time.
To those applications tenants on the land including the appellants were joined as respondents.
The girasdars did number appeal against that order within the time prescribed.
The order of Mr. Mankodi was challenged before the High Court of Gujarat by means of writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
On the death of Jethaji, the giras devolved on his sons.
That giras is a part of Kotda sanghani Mahal.
1951, all giras estates were abolished under the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act to be herein after referred to as the Act .
Thereafter the girasdars were only entitled to certain limited area as their gharkhed.
On September 1.
Collector, Gondol.
The girasdars went up in appeal to the Dy.
Then the girasdars took up those matters in revision to the Revenue Tribunal.
Against that order the matter was taken up in revision by the tenants to the Tribunal.
On November 10, 1958 he reported to the State Government recommending that the order made by the Mahalkari on December 21, 1957 and by the District Deputy Collector on February 25, 1958 should be set aside as they were wrong on merits.
But by the time this recommendation came to be companysidered by the State Government, the State of Gujarat of which the territory of the former State of Saurashtra is a part had companye into existence.
Further ft directed the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
It also quashed the order made by the Revenue Tribunal on April 29, 1958.
He by his order dated March 29, 1962, set aside the order passed by the Saurashtra Government on October 22, 1956 taking the view that the Government had numbercompetence to make that order.
