9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (8) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laintiff who expired on or about March 9, 1948 leaving behind him the plaintiff who was then a minor as his only heir. On August 26, 1948 the Collector of Ahmedabad was appointed as the guardian of the properties of the plaintiff by an order of the District Court, Ahmedabad. Subsequently, on or about January 15, 1953, the then Bombay Government assumed management of the estate under the Court of Wards Act 1905 (Bombay Act No. 1 of 1905) and appointed the Collector of Ahmedabad as the manager of the same. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants fraudulently entered into a conspiracy with the Collector's subordinate staff for getting possession of the disputed lands. In this connection the first defendant wrote to the District Collector, Ahmedabad on July 25, 1956 representing that certain persons formed or will form a Co-operative Society for carrying on agriculture and therefore required the lands for that purpose. Defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 also made applications for that purpose alleging that they were Rabari, kept cattle and were residents of Ahmedabad but none of them had any agricultural land. On account of the fraud of the defendants the Collector was prevailed upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had no jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether the defendants were or were not tenants from the date of the suit and this question could only be decided by the Revenue Authorities. For these reasons the High Court directed that under Section 85-A of the Act the following issue should be referred to the Mamlatdar having jurisdiction in the matter for his decision and that the officer shall communicate his decision, or, if there are appeals from the decision, the final decision, to the High Court as soon as possible. The issue was as follows: Do the defendants prove that they are tenants of the lands in suit The High Court further directed that the hearing of the appeal should stand adjourned until after the relevant communication was received from the Revenue Authorities. 3. It is necessary at this stage to set out the relevant provisions of the Act as it stood at the material time. Section 2 (18) states: 2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- (18) 'tenant' means a person who holds land on lease and includes- (a) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under Section 4; (b) a person who is a protected tenant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under Section 31: Provided that where a person of such category is a member or a joint family, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply if at least one member of the joint family is outside the categories mentioned in this sub-section unless before the 31st day of March 1958 the share of such person in the joint family has been separated by metes and bounds and the Mamlatdar on inquiry is satisfied that the share of such person in the land is separated, having regard to the area, assessment, classification and value of the land in the same proportion as the share of that person in the entire joint family property and not in a larger proportion. (b) Where the tenant is a minor or a widow or a person subject to any mental or physical disability or a serving member of the armed forces, then subject to the provisions of clause (a), the right to purchase land under Section 32 may be exercised- (i) by the minor within one year from the date on which he attains majority; (ii) by the successor-in-title of the widow within one year from the date on which her interest in the land ceases to exist; * * * Provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or Tribunal, a Manager, the Collector or the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in appeal or revision or the State Government in exercise of their powers of control. (2) No order of the Mamlatdar, the Tribunal, the Collector or the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal or the State Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section a Civil Court shall include a Mamlatdar's Court constituted under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906. Section 85-A provides as follows: (1) If any suit instituted in any Civil Court involves any issues which are required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any authority competent to settle, decide or deal with such issues under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'competent authority') the Civil Court shall stay the suit and refer such issues to such competent authority for determination. (2) On receipt of such reference from the Civil Court, the competent authority shall deal with and decide such issues in accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng an agriculturist, cultivates personally land not less than the ceiling area whether as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant unless any of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) such a person bona fide requires the land for a non-agricultural purpose; or (b) the land is required for the benefit of an industrial or commercial undertaking or an educational or charitable institution; or (c) such land being mortgaged, the mortgagee has obtained from the Collector a certificate that he intends to take the profession of an agriculturist and agrees to cultivate the land personally; or (d) the land is required by a Co-operative Society; or 4. The first question to be considered in this case is whether the High Court was right in taking the view that the plaintiff failed to establish that the lease created on August 24, 1956 was vitiated by fraud. It was contended by Mr. S. T. Desai on behalf of the plaintiff that the trial court had reached the finding that there was a conspiracy between the defendants and the Collectorate staff and the Collector was induced by fraud and misrepresentation to grant lease in favour of the defendants. It was argued tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the management by the Court of Wards the provisions of the Act again became applicable to the suit lands. It has been found by the High Court upon examination of the evidence that the Court of Wards withdrew its superintendence on May 11, 1958 when the order for the release of the management was actually passed and not on May 11, 1957 when the plaintiff attained majority. It is evident therefore that the Act applied to the suit lands before August 1, 1956, that Sections 1 to 87-A did not apply during the period between August 1, 1956 and May 11, 1958 which was the date on which the management of the estate by the Court of Wards ceased, and that the provisions of the Act again applied to the suit lands after the cessation of such management. On behalf of the defendants the argument was presented that there was a valid lease granted on July 28, 1956 and the defendants were tenants on April 1, 1957 i.e., the date of 'the tillers' day* under Section 32 of the Act and accordingly the defendants became statutory owners of the lands in suit under that section. Mr. Hathi on behalf of the defendants challenged the finding of the High Court that there was no valid lease created on Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the main question was whether the defendants were or were not the tenants of the suit lands on the material date, namely, July 28, 1956 or on May 11, 1958 and such a question lay within the scope of the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities. In other words, it was argued that the determination of the question whether the lease was created which subsisted after August 1, 1956 or which subsisted also on May 11, 1958 was not a matter within the scope of the jurisdiction of the High Court. We are unable to accept the argument put forward by Mr. Hathi as correct. Section 70(b) of the Act imposes a duty on the Mamlatdar to decide whether a person is a tenant, but the subsection does not cast a duty upon him to decide whether a person was or was not a tenant in the past-whether recent or remote. The main question in the present case was the claim of the defendants that they had become statutory owners of the disputed lands because they were tenants either on the 'tillers' day' or on the date of the release of the management by the Court of Wards. In either case, the question for decision will be not whether the defendants were tenants on the date of the suit but the ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the land in suit . It was pointed out by Mr. S. T. Desai that the High Court had rejected the contention of the defendants that the tenancy was created on July 28, 1956 but the defendants were tenants only with effect from August 24, 1956. The High Court has further found that there was no subsisting tenancy on May 11, 1958 when there was a cessation of the management of the Court of Wards. The suit was brought by the plaintiff on July 11, 1958 and the argument put forward on behalf of the plaintiff is that there was no plea on behalf of the defendants that there was any intervening act, event or transaction between May 11, 1958 and July 11, 1958 under which a fresh tenancy was created. In other words, the argument on behalf of the plaintiff was that the only plea set up on behalf of the defendants was the plea of tenancy on July 28, 1956 which was the basis of the plea of statutory ownership. It was said that there was no other plea of tenancy set up by the defendants subsequent to May 11, 1958 when the management of the Court of Wards ceased. In our opinion, the argument is well founded and must be accepted as correct. On behalf of the defendants Mr. Hathi referred to parag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
