Shri Vasanji Keval (dead) & Ors. Vs. Shri Morarbhai Ranchhodhai & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No, 1577 of 1974
Petitioner: Shri Vasanji Keval (dead) & Ors.
Respondent: Shri Morarbhai Ranchhodhai & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No, 1577 of 1974
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 07, 1995
Head Note:
LAND AND TENANCY LAWS
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:
Section 32G – Appellants being protected tenants held entitled to the benefits of section 32G – Appeal allowed.
JUDGEMENT:
HANSARIA, J. :
1. The appellants herein, who are respondents in C.A.No. 1578 of 1974*, having been held in the judgment rendered in that appeal today to be protected tenants, this appeal has to be allowed inasmuch as the learned single Judge of the High Court decided against the appellants because of his conclusion reached in the related appeal that the appellants are not protected tenants, and so, not entitled to the benefit of section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
2. It would, therefore, be open to the legal representatives of the appellants to proceed further as was ordered by Agricultural Lands Tribunal and Mamlatdar in his order dated 16.4.1964, which was upheld by the Assistant Collector, Alpath Prant, Surat on appeal to him and by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on revision being preferred to it.
3. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.
1. The appellants herein, who are respondents in C.A.No. 1578 of 1974*, having been held in the judgment rendered in that appeal today to be protected tenants, this appeal has to be allowed inasmuch as the learned single Judge of the High Court decided against the appellants because of his conclusion reached in the related appeal that the appellants are not protected tenants, and so, not entitled to the benefit of section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
2. It would, therefore, be open to the legal representatives of the appellants to proceed further as was ordered by Agricultural Lands Tribunal and Mamlatdar in his order dated 16.4.1964, which was upheld by the Assistant Collector, Alpath Prant, Surat on appeal to him and by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on revision being preferred to it.
3. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.
