R.C. Mankad, J.
1. Petitioners, unfortunate tenants, who have been dragged from one authority to another, are told after about 18 years of litigation that though they are deemed purchasers of the land leased to them and though they are illegally deprived of possession of this land, they cannot be put back in possession of land because proper proceedings have not been initiated. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (Tribunal for short) has allowed the Revision Application of landlords, respondents herein, holding that in absence of proceedings under Section 84(c) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Act for short) Mamlatdar & Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Petlad (A.L.T. for short) could not have directed the landlords to hand-over possession of the land to the petitioners, in proceedings under Section 32G of the Act.
2. The chequered history of this petition is as follows:
Petitioners are heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Parshottamdas Mathurbhai (the deceased for short). The deceased was tenant of the land bearing Survey Numbers 486 and 488 of village Sojitra, taluka-Petlad in Kheda District (hereinafter referred to as the land). The A.L.T. initiated proceedings under Section 32G of the Act for determining the price of the land payable to the landlord by the tenant. In these proceedings the deceased is alleged to have made statement to the effect that he had handed over the possession of the land to the landlord and that he was not willing to purchase the land. The A.L.T. by its order dated; December 17, 1961 held that as the tenant was not cultivating the land since 7 to 8 years prior to the date of the initiation of the proceedings, the proceedings were required to be closed. In this view of the matter the A.L.T. dropped the proceedings under Section 32G of the Act. After the death of the deceased the petitioners, who are heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, filed an appeal being Tenancy Appeal No. 610 of 1970 before the Deputy Collector, Kheda challenging the order passed by the A.L.T. dropping the proceedings under Section 32G of the Act. The Deputy Collector dismissed the petitioners' appeal on August 10, 1971 on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Collector went in revision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the Revision Application and remanded the matter for fresh disposal to the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector in turn remanded the matter to the A.L.T. on October 9, 1972 for making fresh inquiry under Section 320 of the Act. The landlord being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Collector preferred revision application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, rejected the Revision Application of the landlord by an order dated : October 5, 1973. After the matter was remanded to it by the Deputy Collector, as aforesaid, the A.L.T. by an order dated: January 13, 1979 held that the deceased was not found to be in possession of the land in year 1953 and consequently the petitioners could not be held to be the tenants of the land. This view taken by the A.L.T. was confirmed by the Deputy Collector while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dismissing their appeal passed by the Deputy Collector went in revision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated: April 23, 1982 allowed the Revision Application filed by the petitioners. The Tribunal held that the tenancy of the deceased continued upto 1961 and that it had not been legally or validly terminated under the Act. The Tribunal further held that the deceased was in possession of the land on the Tillers' day i.e. on April 1, 1957 and continued to be in possession thereof till 1961. The Tribunal held that since the tenancy of the deceased was not legally terminated he became deemed purchaser and occupant of the land on Tillers' day under Section 32G of the Act. It was further held that the petitioners, who are the legal heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, also become deemed purchasers of the land by virtue of the porvisions of Section 32G of the Act. The Tribunal further held that it was not the case of the deceased that he had surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of the landlord nor was it the case of the landlords that they had obtained possession of land under Sections 14, 25, 29 and or 31 of the Act for personal cultivation. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal held that if the petitioners were not in possession of the land, they were entitled to get back possession thereof. In the result the Tribunal allowed the revision application and remanded the matter to the A.L.T. for the fixation of the purchase price. The landlords applied for the review of the decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, rejected the review application by its order dated May 2, 1983. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the landlords filed Special Civil Application No. 3062 of 1984 in this Court. This Court however by its order dated November 12, 1984 rejected the petition of the landlords.
3. After the matter was remanded, as aforesaid, by the Tribunal, the A.L.T. by its order dated May 24, 1985 held that since the possession of the land was taken over by the landlord from the tenant without following legal procedure and since direction was given to sell the land to the petitioners, the landlord should handover possession of land to the petitioners within 15 days the date of the order. The A.L.T. further directed that proceedings for determining the price of the land under Section 32G would be taken up after possession of the land was handed over to the petitioners. The Deputy Collector by his order dated: April 4, 1986 confirmed the order passed by A.L.T. in the appeal preferred by the landlords. The landlords-respondents herein being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Collector went in Revision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated: September 30, 1987 held that the question of tenancy between the parties was finally decided by the Tribunal and the matter was pending before the A.L.T. only for the limited purpose of determining the price of the land. The Tribunal further held that the question of handing over of possession of the land to the tenants could not have been decided under Section 32G of the Act, although the A.L.T. had power to do so under Section 70(n) of the Act. The Tribunal took the view that the A.L.T. should have initiated separate proceedings for handing over the possession of the land to the tenants. In this view of the matter it held that the order passed by the A.L.T. for delivering possession of the land to the petitioners was unjustified and without jurisdiction. In the result the Tribunal allowed the Revision Application of the landlords and set aside the orders passed by the A.L.T. and Deputy Collector and remanded the matter to the A.L.T. for determining the price with direction that he should direct the parties to pursue proper remedy for obtaining possession of the land and after the tenants are put in possession of the land he should determine the price of the land. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
4. As already pointed out above, the Tribunal had by its order dated : April 23, 1982 recorded a clear finding that deceased Parshottamdas Mathurbhai had become purchaser of the land on the Tillers' day i.e. April 1, 1957 and that he was in possession of the land till 1961. The Tribunal, further held that the deceased was deprived of his possession of the land without due process of law. Under these circumstances, it was held that the petitioners, who have stepped in the shoes of the deceased, were entitled to possession of the land, if they were not in possession thereof. This decision of the Tribunal has become final as Special Civil Application No. 3062 of 1984 filed against the said decision before this Court by the landlords was rejected on November 12, 1984. The following findings clearly emerge from the said decision of the Tribunal:
(1) The deceased was tenant of the land on April 1, 1957 - the Tillers' day and he had, therefore, become deemed purchaser of the land on that date.
(2) The deceased was in possession of the land upto 1961.
(3) The deceased was dispossessed of the land without due process of law.
(4) The petitioners had stepped in the shoes of the deceased and that they had become deemed purchasers of the land under Section 32G of the Act.
(5) The deceased and after his death the petitioners have become entitled to the possession of the land. And if the petitioners were not in possession of the land they were entitled to get back possession thereof.
What the A.L.T. was required to do was to put the petitioners in possession of the land and determine the price of the land. In my opinion, therefore, when the matter was remanded to the A.L.T., it was open to it to direct the landlords to handover possession of the land to the petitioners and to determine the purchase price of the land. The A.L.T. has on the matter being remanded to it for fresh disposal held an inquiry and it came to an independent conclusion that the deceased was illegally dispossesed of the land between June 15, 1955 and March 3, 1973. It was under these circumstances that the A.L.T. directed the landlords to handover the possession of the land to the petitioners. Under. Section 32(IB) of the Act it was open to the A.L.T. to suo motu hold an inquiry and if it came to the conclusion that the tenant was in possession of the land between the appointed day i.e. June 15, 1955 and the specified day i.e. March 3, 1973 it is open to it to direct the landlord to handover possession of the land to the petitioners. Inquiry as contemplated under Section 32(1B) of the Act can be held simultaneously with the proceedings under Section 32G of the Act. There is nothing in the Act which prohibits such simultaneous inquiry. In the instant case it is not disputed that in view of the decision of the Tribunal, which has become final, deceased Parshottamdas who was tenant of the land was in possession of the land as tenant between June 15, 1955 the appointed date and March 3, 1973 the specified date and, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to restoration of the possession of the land under Section 32(1B) of the Act. The Tribunal has, however, taken a very technical view that the only thing which the A.L.T. was required to do was to determine the price of the land and that in the proceedings under Section 32G he could not have directed the landlords to handover possession of the land to the tenants. Apart from this too technical a view, such a view could not have been taken in view of the earlier decision of the Tribunal adverted to above. Further there is nothing in the Act to prohibit the A.L.T. from holding an inquiry under Section 32(IB) of the Act simultaneously with the proceedings under Section 32G of the Act. If in the course of inquiry under Section 32G of the Act the A.L.T. finds that the tenant has been dispossessed of the land between June 15, 1955 and March 3, 1973, it can suo motu initiate proceedings under Section 32(IB) of the Act and direct the landlord to hand over possession of the land to the tenant. In the instant case the A.L.T. held an inquiry and found necessary facts to invoke provisions of Section 32(1B) of the Act. In fact the landlords also do not dispute that they have dispossessed the deceased of the land between the aforesaid dates without following the procedures laid down in the Act. It is, therefore, obvious that the possession of the land was taken illegally from the tenant between the aforesaid dates. Under the circumstances, the A.L.T. had authority and jurisdiction to give relief under Section 32(1B) and to direct the landlords to handover possession of the land to the petitioners-tenants.
5. I am fortified in the view, which I have taken, by a decision of this Court in Patel Prabhudas Madhavdas v. Bai Shivkora Wd/o. Bhudar Ranchhod [1982 (1)] 23 (1) GLR 333. That was a case in which the landlady did not apply for actual possession of the land under Section 31(4) of the Act within six months after coming into force of the Amending Act No. 5 of 1973, which came into force on March 3, 1973. Therefore, on September 3, 1973 the petitioner, who was tenant, became deemed purchaser of the land leased to him, on account of the combined operation of Section 32F(1)(1A) and Section 31(4) as amended by the Amending Act. In that case also the tenant had not given application to the Mamlatdar to surrender his tenancy rights in favour of the landlord within the two terminal dates as provided in Section 2(18)(d) namely the appointed day i.e. June 15, 1955 and the specified date i.e. March 3, 1973. Consequently, Section 32FF could not be pressed into service for getting the tenant declared as deemed purchaser. Under the circumstances, the A.L.T. Visnagar initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 32F (presumably read with Section 32FF and further read with Section 32G) and issued notices to the tenant as well as the landlady to appear before him in the said proceedings to show cause why the tenant should not be held to be deemed purchaser to the land under the provisions of the aforesaid Amending Act 5 of 1973. The proceedings were initiated by the A.L.T. on December 10, 1974. It may be mentioned that there were no independent or separate proceedings under Section 32(1B) of the Act. The question which this Court was called upon to answer was whether on the proved and admitted facts on record the petitioners could have been held to be deemed purchasers of the land under Section 32(1B) of the Act. This Court found that the tenant had not surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of the landlady. However, under some private arrangement the tenant had handed over possession of the land for cultivation to the landlady in 1962-63 a few years after the deemed purchase of the land was postponed by an order of the Mamlatdar. It was observed that such private arrangement between the parties could not have any legal efficacy. In that case the Mamlatdar had by his order Annexure 'D' dated: June 23, 1969 deleted tenant's name as tenant from the revenue records. This Court held that this order Annexure 'D' was neither under Section 29 nor under Section 15 or under any other provisions of the Act. It was, however, clearly established on record in inquiry before the A.L.T. that the landlady had been in actual cultivation of the land from 1962-63. Thus according to this Court all basic conditions required for the applicability of Section 32(1B) of the Act had been fully complied with in that case. The Tribunal, however, failed to give relief to the tenant under Section 32(1B) only on the ground that the tenant had surrendered his tenancy rights to the landlady pursuant to the order Annexure 'D' of the Mamlatdar dated : June 23, 1960. This Court held that once that order is shown to be legally ineffective nothing further remained between the tenant and the landlord and the relief could be given under Section 32(1B) as all basic requirements had been fully established in the suo motu inquiry which the Mamlatdar held pursuant to his notice dated: December 10, 1974. This Court, therefore, held that the tenant had fully established his case for restoration of possession of the land in question and for fixation of the purchase price in his favour as per the provisions of Section 32(1B) of the Act. It would thus appear that if in the course of inquiry which was held under Section 32G of the Act all the conditions of Section 32G(1B) were complied with, it was open to the A.L.T. to restore possession of the land to the tenant.
6. In the instant case while the proceedings under Section 32G were pending before it, the A.L.T. held an inquiry and in the course of such inquiry it came to the conclusion that the tenant was dispossessed of the land between June 15, 1955 and March 3, 1973 without following the procedure laid down in the Act. The A.L.T. could, therefore, have given relief under Section 32(1B) of the Act and directed that the possession of the land be handed over to the tenant. It was open to the A.L.T. to hold simultaneous inquiries under Section 32G and 31(1B) of the Act, as already observed above. The Tribunal has, therefore, erred in holding that after the matter was remanded to the A.L.T. the only thing it had to do was to determine the price of the land and it could not have restored possession of the land to the petitioners. If after proper inquiry all the conditions of Section 32(1B) of the Act are satisfied, the A.L.T. has authority and jurisdiction to restore possession of the land to the tenants. Apart from that, as observed above, when the finding given by the Tribunal that the petitioners were entitled to possession of the land, had become final, the A.L.T. had no option but to hand over possession of the land to the petitioners. As pointed out above, the decision of the Tribunal in which the said finding was given has become final when the Special Civil Application filed by the landlords was rejected by this Court. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal could not have held that it was not open to the A.L.T. to restore possession of the land to the petitioners. Mere label of Section 32G given to the procedings cannot prevent the A.L.T. from acting suo motu under Section 32(1B) and after holding inquiry to direct the landlord to handover the possession of the land to the tenant. In my opinion, the Tribunal has committed an error apperant on the face of the record in allowing the revision: application of respondents-landlords and setting aside the order passed by the A.L.T., which was confirmed by the Deputy Collector. In the result this petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal allowing revision application of the respondents, landlords are quashed and set aside and the orders passed by the A.L.T. and Deputy Collector are restored. The A.L.T. is directed to take steps to see that possession of the land is handed over to the petitioners forthwith. A.L.T. is further directed to take steps to determine purchase price of land in accordance with law. The attention of the A.L.T. is drawn to the fact that the landlords have remained in illegal possession of the land for more than 27 years and they have, therefore, become liable to pay mesne profits to the tenants. A.L.T. will bear this fact in mind while determining the purchase price of the land and make suitable adjustment in that regard. This, however, will be without prejudice to the right of the tenant to file a suit for recovering mesne profits in accordance with law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion it is a fit case where the landlords should be directed to pay quantified amount of cost to the petitioners. Rule is accordingly made absolute with costs. Cost is quantified at Rs. 1000/-'.