CAV Judgment

1. By way of filing present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following main relief:

          "a) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 13.06.2011 rendered in Revision Application No.TEN/BA/387/96 and passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad at ANNEXURE-I by declaring and holding that the land of Block No.539 & 570 which came to be purchased by Lakha Trikam from one Kashiben Wd/o Popatlal in a proceeding U/s. 32-G of the said Act by paying the necessary consideration can in no way be treated as the land of Joint and common tenancy along with the respondents and the land of Survey Nos.9/7, 48/3 and 65/2 and Block No. 539 & 570 are two separate and distinct lands of Village Thori-Mubarak."

2. The facts of the case of the petitioners can be summarized in a nutshell as under:

          2.1. That land bearing Block No. 570, admeasuring Acre 12 & 29 Guntha and land bearing Block No. 539, admeasuring Acre 10 & 17 Guntha of village Thori Mubarak, Taluka: Viramgam, District Ahmedabad was running in the name of Ribhabhai Trikambhai and Malabhai Trikambhai. The Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam issued notice to the concerned parties under Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (it shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'Act' for short). Thereafter, the proceedings came to be initiated by the Mamlatdar & ALT, wherein, the statements of the father of the petitioner i.e. Khodabhai Lakhabhai as well as one Bhanabhai Malabhai i.e. the heir of Malabhai Trikambhai have been recorded and after considering their statements as well other materials and/or documents including the Panchnama, wherein it is specifically stated that the possession of the land in question (which has come in the share of Ribhabhai Trikambhai and Malabhai Trikambhai) is with the Vitthalbhai Ribhabhai (heir of Ribhabhai Trikambhai), Bhanabhai Malabhai (heir of Malabhai Trikambhai) as well as Bhikhaibhai Vitthalbhai (heir of Vitthalbhai Ribhabhai) since last so many years, the notice issued under Section 84C of the Act has been withdrawn by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam vide order dated 20.03.1991 by holding that considering the statement/reply of Khodabhai i.e. the heir of tenant Lakhabhai Trikambhai, the breach of the conditions of the Act has not been proved. The said order has been taken into revision under Section 76(A) of the Act by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad upon an application preferred by Gandabhai Valabhai and Bhanabhai Malabhai (respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein). After appreciating and considering the materials available on record, the Deputy Collector concerned has jumped to the conclusion that the brothers of Lakha Trikam i.e. Ribha Trikam and Mala Trikam as well as Ganda Vala are also having equal share in the land in question and therefore after affording an opportunity of hearing and considering and appreciating the materials/documents produced by them, fresh decision is required to be taken by the Mamlatdar & ALT. The revision, therefore, came to be disposed of by the concerned Deputy Collector by remanding the matter back to the Mamlatdar & ALT to decide it afresh, vide order dated 31.03.1992.

          2.2. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Act and after considering and appreciating the materials and documents produced by the respective parties, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam passed an order dated 09.07.1992, whereby, the names of Gandabhai Valabhai - heir of deceased Vala Trikam - heir of deceased Trikam Rupa, Vitthalbhai Ribhabhai - heir of deceased Ribha Trikam and Bhanabhai Malabhai - heir of deceased Malabhai Trikambhai have been inserted in the revenue record as the co-occupiers of the land in question as their equal share in the property has been proved. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner i.e. Khodabhai Lakhabhai Chamar has preferred an appeal under Section 74 of the Act before the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad. The said appeal came to be partly allowed by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad vide order dated 22.03.1993, whereby, the matter is remanded back to the Mamlatdar & ALT for taking fresh decision after verifying original record of heirship entry No.1129, mutated in the revenue record on 29.10.1948, whereby, the names of Ribha Trikam, Mala Trikam, Lakha Trikam and Gandabhai Valabhai have been mutated in the revenue record.

          2.3. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam passed order dated 2-3/07/1993, which was assailed before the Deputy Collector by preferring revision under Section 76A of the Act before the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad. However, as the aforesaid order is a non-speaking and cryptic one, the Deputy Collector quashed and set aside both the orders dated 09.07.1992 as well as 2-3/07/1993 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam and remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar & ALT to decide the matter afresh.

          2.4. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam has initiated the proceedings and after considering and appreciating the materials/documents, passed an order dated 04.08.1995, inter alia, observing and holding that it is proved that all the persons, whose names were ordered to be inserted in the revenue record vide order dated 09.07.1992 by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam, are having equal share in the land in question. The Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam has also withdrawn the notice issued under Section 84C of the Act. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner herein preferred appeal under Section 74 of the Act before the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad. However, the said appeal also came to be dismissed by the Deputy Collector vide order dated 20.02.1996. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. However, the said revision also came to be dismissed by the GRT vide order dated 13.06.2011. Hence, present petition is preferred.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Dhotre appearing for the petitioners submits that a notice under Section 84C of the Act has been issued by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Ahmedabad. However, after considering the materials and documents available on record, the Mamlatdar & ALT withdrew the said notice in view of the fact that the father of the petitioner is the tenant of the land in question. However, the said order has been taken into revision by the Deputy Collector and ultimately the said revision came to be disposed of by the Deputy Collector by remanding the matter back to the Mamlatdar & ALT to decide it afresh in view of the fact that the respondents herein are also having equal share in the land in question and they are the co-occupiers. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar has initiated the proceedings and passed the order dated 09.07.1992 in Tenancy Case No.291 of 1992, whereby, the names of Gandabhai Valabhai - heir of deceased Vala Trikam - heir of deceased Trikam Rupa, Vitthalbhai Ribhabhai - heir of deceased Ribha Trikam and Bhanabhai Malabhai - heir of deceased Malabhai Trikambhai have been inserted in the revenue record as the co-occupiers of the land in question as the fact of their equal share in the subject land has been proved. Learned advocate Mr. Dhotre for the petitioners submits that petitioners have assailed the said order before the Deputy Collector by preferring an appeal. However, the Deputy Collector has partly allowed the said appeal and remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar & ALT to verify the original record of entry No.1129, mutated on 29.10.1948, whereby, the names of other brothers of Lakhabhai Trikambhai alleged to have been mutated in the revenue record. Learned advocate Mr. Dhotre submits that thrice the matter has been remanded to the Mamlatdar concerned to decide the issue. However, lastly, the Mamlatdar & ALT has passed the impugned order dated 04.08.1995, whereby, it is held that respondents are also having equal share in the subject land and they are the co- occupiers of the subject land. He submits that the said order of the Mamlatdar & ALT has been carried in appeal before the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad. However, the said appeal also came to be dismissed by the Deputy Collector. The petitioners, therefore, assailed the said order of the Deputy Collector before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by preferring Revision Application No.TEN/BA/387/96. The said revision also came to be rejected by the GRT. Hence, present petition is preferred by the petitioners.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Dhotre has read the provisions of Section 84C of the Act and submitted that the authorities below have committed grave error in expanding the scope and ambit of Section 84C of the Act. He submits that Section 84C of the Act empowers the Mamlatdar to initiate inquiries into invalid land transactions, such as sales to non- agriculturists. He submits that the said provision nowhere contemplates about holding of an enquiry for determining the share of any party in the land which is the subject matter under such provision. He submits that it is pertinent to note that the notice issued under Section 84C of the Act has been withdrawn by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam by holding that for the subject land there is no breach and Lakhabhai Trikambhai and his heir Khodabhai Lakhabhai i.e. the deceased petitioner were the Tenant. Thus, when the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam has jumped to the conclusion that there is no breach of statutory provisions of the Act, there is no further scope for the concerned Revenue Authorities to travel beyond the provisions of the Statute itself. He submits that the revenue authorities are not empowered to hold that the other brothers of Lakha Trikam are also having equal share in the subject land and the said issue is required to be decided by the competent Civil Court. Thus, the revenue authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction while passing the impugned orders and holding that other brothers of Lakha Trikam are also having equal share in the subject land and therefore their names are required to be inserted in the revenue record as co-occupiers, without there being any order from the competent Civil Court holding that the other brothers of Lakha Trikam are also having equal share in the subject land.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Dhotre further submits that the suo motu powers of revision has to be exercised within a reasonable time and in catena of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, it is held that the authority concerned has to initiate the suo motu proceedings within a period of three years in case if the time limit is not prescribed in the statute itself. However, in the instant case, admittedly, the notice under Section 84C of the Act has been issued on 19.06.1990 for alleged transfer/acquisition which has taken place on 01.08.1956 i.e. almost after 33 years. He, therefore, submits that only on this ground, the orders impugned are required to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr. Dhotre has put reliance upon the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The State of Gujarat v Patil Raghav Natha & Ors, reported in (1969) 2 SCC 187 and in the case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 71 as well as decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shambhuram Videshiram Morya v. State of Gujarat through Secretary (Appeals) & Ors., reported in 2012 (1) GLR 665.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Dhotre further submits that if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the contents of notice issued under Section 84C of the Act, in that event, it would have been found out that the land bearing Block No.539 was never a part of notice. Despite that, the revenue authorities concerned had initiated suo motu proceedings qua Block No.539 and passed the impugned orders. The said view adopted by the revenue authorities is not legal and valid and the same is beyond the scope of notice issued under Section 84C of the Act. He, therefore, submits that the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside. He further submits that once the notice issued under Section 84C of the Act has been withdrawn by the concerned revenue authority, it is not open for the revenue authority to go into the issue of share of other brothers of Lakha Trikam in the subject land.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Dhotre further submits that the subject land is purchased by Lakha Trikam - father of Khodabhai (deceased petitioner) from one Kashiben, widow of Popatlal, in the proceedings initiated under Section 32G of the Act by paying necessary amount. He submits that in the said proceedings, notices came to be issued to Ribha Trikam and his brother Lakha Trikam. However, said Ribha Trikam has not raised any objection and participated in the proceedings and therefore certificate of purchase under Section 32M of the Act has been issued in favour of Lakha Trikam. He submits that certificate of purchase is the conclusive evidence and pursuant to issuance of certificate of purchase under Section 32M of the Act, name of Lakha Trikam has been mutated in the revenue record and none of the brothers of Lakha Trikam have raised any objection and/or made any challenge against the issuance of certificate of purchase in the name of Lakha Trikam or the entry, whereby the name of Lakha Trikam has been mutated in the revenue record qua the subject land, before the competent forum and therefore in the proceedings initiated under Section 84C of the Act, the concerned revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to hold that other brothers of Lakha Trikam have also equal share in the subject land. He submits that in fact before the revenue authorities he has already produced all those documents which would crystallize the position of fact that the price fixed by the revenue authority concerned has already been deposited by Lakha Trikam through different vouchers before the competent authority and thereafter the certificate of purchase has been issued under Section 32M of the Act. He submits that in fact the said proceedings have been initiated by the concerned revenue authority by issuing notices under Section 32G of the Act to Lakha Trikam and his brother Ribha Trikam, however, Ribha Trikam had not participated in the said proceedings and therefore those proceedings have been continued against Lakha Trikam only. He submits that land bearing Survey Nos. 9/7, 48/3 and 65/2 originally belongs to Trikam Rupa and after the sad demise of said Trikam Rupa, names of Ribha Trikam, Mala Trikam, Lakha Trikam and Ganda Vala have been mutated in the revenue record vide entry No.1129 on 29.10.1948, whereas, land bearing Survey Nos. 176/1, 175/5 and 6/2 was originally owned by one Ramjibhai Popatlal and after his death on 03.03.1960, name of Kashiben Popatlal has been mutated in the revenue record vide entry No.1460 and during the lifespan of Ramjibhai Popatlal, the said parcels of land have been cultivated by Lakha Trikam as a tenant. He submits that thus only the land bearing Survey Nos. 9/7, 48/3 and 65/2 stood in the name of Trikam Rupa, wherein, other brothers of Lakha Trikam have their relevant share and not in the land bearing Survey Nos. 176/1, 175/5 and 6/2, which Lakha Trikam had purchased from Kashiben Popatlal through certificate of purchase issued under Section 32M of the Act. He further submits that Block No.539 consists of Survey Nos.9/7 and 175/5, whereas, Block No.570 consists of Survey No.176/1 and 6/2. He further submits that if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon entry No.1129, in that event, it would have been found out that only Survey No.9/7 is shown in the said entry based upon which the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad has remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar & ALT at the first in point of time by believing that other brothers of Lakha Trikam have also equal share in the subject land. He, therefore, submits that the other brothers of Lakha Trikam are having their respective shares only in 2 gunthas of land bearing Survey No.9/7 and the said fact is found out from the order dated 2-3/07/1993 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT. Learned advocate Mr. Dhotre submits that thus barring Survey No.9/7, the survey numbers which are shown in entry No.1129 are not part of the subject land i.e. land bearing Block Nos. 539 and 570, despite that, the revenue authorities concerned have passed the impugned orders holding that other brothers of Lakha Trikam have also equal share in the subject land. He, therefore, submits that in view of the aforesaid overall facts of the present case, petition is required to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the orders impugned.

8. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Trilok Patel appearing for the private respondents has objected present petition with vehemence and submitted that the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam had initiated proceedings under Section 84C of the Act by issuing notice to the petitioner herein. However, the said notice has been withdrawn by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam vide order dated 20.03.1991 by observing that considering the reply of Khodabhai - heir of Lakhabhai Trikambhai, who is the tenant of land bearing Block No.570 of village Thori Mubarak, there is no breach of condition of provisions of the Act and therefore notice issued under Section 84C is ordered to be withdrawn. He submits that vide said order, the Mamlatdar has considered Lakha Trikam and his heirs to be the teant and therefore being aggrieved by the said decision, private respondents herein have preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, inter alia, contending that the subject land i.e. land bearing Block Nos. 539 and 570 is of the joint ownership of their forefathers and they are jointly cultivating the subject land since decades and since then they are the co-occupiers and Khodabhai Lakhabhai and Jethabhai Lakhabhai are trying to deprive them from their lawful rights in the subject land and therefore their names also refused to be inserted in the revenue record as co- occupiers. He submits that after appreciating and considering the overall materials and documents, the Deputy Collector has remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar & ALT to decide it afresh by holding that the other brothers of Lakha Trikam are also having equal share in the subject land. He submits that the said fact is fortified from the operative part of the order dated 31.03.1992 passed by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad. He submits that the said order of the Deputy Collector is not challenged by the petitioners herein before the higher forum and it attains finality. Thus, the observations made by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad that including Lakha Trikam, his other brothers viz. Ribha Trikam, Mala Trikam and Ganda Vala are also having equal share in the subject land has attained finality and the said observations made by the Deputy Collector is not challenged by the petitioners herein. He submits that only on this ground the petition filed by the petitioners is required to be quashed and set aside.

9. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that all the revenue authorities have recorded concurrent findings of fact that land bearing Block No.539 (old Survey No.175/5) and land bearing Block No.570 (old Survey No.176/1) were originally belonging to Trikambhai Rupabhai (grand father of petitioners and private respondents herein) and after his sad demise, all the family members acquired equal share and they are cultivating the portion of their respective share in the subject land. Thus, the subject land is jointly cultivated by the petitioners as well as private respondents since last many decades but as the private respondents being illiterate and not acquainted with the legal procedure, all the family members have decided to handover the administration of the family to Lakha Trikam and therefore his name alone was running in the revenue record as a tenant and certificate of purchase under Section 32M was also issued in his name. He has drawn the attention of this Court to entry No.1129 posted on 29.10.1948 and submitted that vide said entry, after the death of Trikam Rupa, being the Karta of the joint family name of Ribha Trikam has been mutated in the revenue record and in the said entry it is specifically observed that Ribha Trikam, Mala Trikam, Lakha Trikam as well as Ganda Vala are the legal heirs of Trikam Rupa and since they are residing in a joint family and Ribha Trikam being the administrator of the family, his name is required to be mutated as Karta of the joint family and therefore being the Karta of the joint family, name of Ribha Trikam is mutated.

10. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has also drawn the attention of this Court to entry No.1370 mutated in the revenue record on 31.03.1959 and submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the contents of the said entry, in that event it would have been found out that along with Lakha Trikam name of Vibha (sic Ribha) Trikam is also shown as an ordinary tenant and both Lakha Trikam and Ribha Trikam were jointly cultivating the subject land. He submits that the petitioners have failed to produce any document based on which the name of Ribha Trikam has been removed from the revenue record as an ordinary tenant.

11. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that there was joint family and all the brothers were jointly cultivating and possessing the subject land and therefore merely on the ground that the proceedings under Section 32G of the Act has been conducted and certificate of purchase under Section 32M of the Act has been issued in favour of Lakha Trikam only, it does not mean that Lakha Trikam has got exclusive tenancy right by depriving the rights of other members of a joint family/tenants. He further submits that certificate of purchase under Section 32M of the Act is issued in the name of Karta of the family. The said certificate was issued in favour of Lakha Trikam for and on behalf of the joint family. He further submits that it is true that the issuance of certificate of purchase under Section 32M of the Act is conclusive but it is conclusive qua the landlord only and it cannot be said to be conclusive qua the coparcener or joint tenants who were not parties to the proceedings under Section 32G of the Act and such certificate of purchase would put an end to any controversy between the landlord and the tenant. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has put reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shankerbhai Kanjibhai v. Dagadubhai Govindbhai, reported in 1991(2) GLH 487 and submitted that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision, wherein, the Court observed and held that if the certificate of purchase is issued under Section 32M of the Act in the name of Karta of Joint Family or elderly person which is a tenant, it would not mean that such a person was the sole tenant of the land. He submits that when the certificate of purchase is issued to the Karta or elderly member of the family for and on behalf of the family, other members of the family can also claim the benefit of such a certificate. He, therefore, submits that all the authorities concerned have rightly passed the impugned orders which are not required to be interfered with by this Court.

12. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has put reliance upon the Government Resolutions dated 15.03.1996 and 30.10.2002 and submitted that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid GRs. He submits that in fact in the G.R dated 15.03.1996, the Collectors of the State are directed to mutate the names of all the remaining brothers/sisters in the revenue record qua the land of new tenure, land given on Santhani and land where the provisions of the Act are applicable, upon the death of the elder brother whose name is mutated in the revenue record qua those categories of land. Thus, after the death of Lakha Trikam, in view of the aforesaid GR dated 15.03.1996, names of other brothers of said Lakha Trikam are required to be mutated in the revenue record and therefore the authorities concerned have rightly passed the impugned orders, whereby, the names of other brothers of Lakha Trikam have been mutated in the revenue record as co-occupiers. He submits that the reason for issuance of the aforesaid G.R. is that generally the name of elder son of the original allottee or Karta of the joint family is mutated in the revenue record and the names of other heirs of the original allottee are not mutated and after the death of elder son or Karta of the joint family, the names of his legal heirs are mutated in the revenue record, depriving the interest of other legal heirs of the original allottee and therefore with a sole intent to safeguard the interest of other heirs of the original allottee, by way of aforesaid GR, the Collectors of the State are directed to mutate the names of remaining brothers/sisters (the heirs of original allottee) of the elder son or Karta of the joint family. Thus, keeping in mind the aforesaid GR as well as other documents and/or materials coupled with the fact that the respondents herein and petitioners are co-occupiers and they are jointly cultivating the subject land, the revenue authorities concerned have rightly passed the orders inserting the names of other brothers of Lakha Trikam as co-occupiers.

13. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that the Deputy Collector, while remanding the matter to the Mamlatdar & ALT, specifically observed that Entry No. 1370 indicates that both Lakha Trikam and Ribha Trikam were joint tenants. However, the proceedings under Section 32G of the Act had been initiated against Lakha Trikam only, resulting in the omission of the names of other rightful persons from the revenue record. It was further noted that Ribha Trikam was also a tenant of the subject land and that Lakha Trikam, Ribha Trikam, Mala Trikam, and Ganda Vala were the members of a joint family. Despite this, the Mamlatdar & ALT had declared only Lakha Trikam as the tenant. The Deputy Collector emphasized that the Mamlatdar & ALT ought to have passed the order after hearing all the legal heirs of deceased Trikambhai Rupabhai, as they were in possession of and jointly cultivating the subject land in accordance with their respective shares. Pursuant to these observations, the Mamlatdar & ALT initiated remand proceedings and passed an order dated 09.07.1992. In the said order, the Mamlatdar & ALT has, after considering the materials and documents as well as statements/depositions of adjacent land owners, specifically held that the legal heirs of Trikam Rupa viz. Khoda Vala, Ribha Trikam, Mala Trikam and their heirs viz. Ganda Vala, Vitthal Ribha and Bhanabhai Malabhai are in possession and cultivating the land as per their respective share in the subject land since last many years. It is also observed in the operative part of the order that despite an opportunity of leading the evidence was given to the petitioners to prove that Khodabhai Lakhabhai alone is cultivating the subject land, he has failed to produce any document to that effect. It is also observed by the Mamlatdar & ALT in the said order that police complaints have also been filed by both the parties against each other for entering in to the subject land. Thus, after thoughtful consideration, the Mamlatdar & ALT has held that other legal heirs of Trikam Rupa i.e. Ribha Trikam, Mala Trikam and Vala Trikam are also having equal share in the subject land and therefore their names are required to be mutated in the revenue record as co-occupier and accordingly ordered to insert their names as the co-occupier. He submits that the said view adopted by the Mamlatdar concerned has been upheld by all the revenue authorities. He, therefore, submits that when the revenue authorities concerned have specifically held that other heirs of Trikam Rupa are also having equal share in the subject land and only on account of Karta of the HUF, name of Lakha Trikam has been mutated in the revenue record.

14. In reply to the contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Dhotre for the petitioners that the Revenue Authority is not empowered to decide the share of the persons in the proceedings initiated under Section 84C of the Act and the said issue is required to be decided by the Civil Court concerned, learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that the concerned revenue authorities have not exceeded their jurisdiction and they have not decided the ownership and/or share of the respondents but after considering the depositions of neighbours as well as other materials and documents, the Mamlatdar & ALT held that the other brothers of Lakha Trikam are also cultivating the subject land and earlier the names of Ribha Trikam and Lakha Trikam were mutated in the revenue record as the tenants and the proceedings under Section 32G of the Act have been initiated against Lakha Trikam and Ribha Trikam and therefore the names of other brothers of Lakha Trikam are required to be inserted as co-occupiers and accordingly their names have been inserted. Thus, as per the decision of this Court in the case of Shankerbhai Kanjibhai (supra), since the Joint Family can be the tenant and since one of the members of the Joint Family claims sole and exclusively tenancy excluding other coparceners or joint tenants, when just claim of joint tenants is sought to be denied by the holder of the certificate of purchase, question as contemplated u/s 70(b) of the Act would arise. He has referred Section 70(b) of the Act and submits that the said provision of the Act empowers the Mamlatdar to exclusively decide whether a person is a tenant or not. Thus, the revenue authorities have not exceeded their jurisdiction while passing the impugned orders. He further submits that all the revenue authorities have recorded concurrent findings of fact, wherein, the scope of interference of this Court is very limited. He, therefore, submits that looking to the aforesaid overall facts of the present case, petition is required to be dismissed.

15. Learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi has also objected present petition with vehemence and submitted that considering the checkered history of the matter, thrice the matter has been remanded by the Deputy Collector to the Mamlatdar to consider the issue afresh. He submits that all the authorities have concurrently held that other persons are also in possession and cultivating the subject land since last many years and therefore their names are also required to be mutated in the revenue record as co- occupiers. He submits that the Mamlatdar concerned has got exclusive right to decide the issue of tenancy. He further submits that it is true that the certificate of purchase under Section 32M of the Act is conclusive proof. However, he has fairly conceded that the certificate of purchase issued under Section 32M of the Act is conclusive qua landlord only and not qua other coparceners/joint family members, who are in possession and cultivating the subject land since last many decades. He has also verified the original Record & Proceedings and submitted that he is not in a position to find out any document based upon which name of Ribha Trikam has been removed from the revenue record as one of the tenants. So far as the contention of cross utilization of powers by the revenue authorities is concerned, learned AGP Mr. Trivedi has fairly conceded that it is true that there are so many discrepancies and lapses on the part of the concerned revenue authorities in dealing with the subject matter but at the same time the fact remains that all the revenue authorities, for safeguarding the interest of other coparceners, have passed the impugned order after thorough investigation and based upon the materials/documents and considering the checkered history involved in the instant matter. He, therefore, submits that when all the revenue authorities have concurrently held that the names of other persons of family members of Lakha Trikam are also required to be inserted in the revenue record and that too by keeping open to agitate the civil rights of both the parties before the competent Civil Court, this Court may not have to interfere with those concurrent findings of fact.

16. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials available on record, it is found out that the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam had issued notice under Section 84C of the Act to the petitioners and after considering the materials and documents available on record, the said notice has been withdrawn by holding that considering the statement/reply of Khodabhai i.e. the heir of tenant Lakhabhai Trikambhai, the breach of the conditions of the Act has not been proved. The private respondents herein have assailed the said order before the Deputy Collector by contending that respondents herein have also equal share in the subject land and therefore their names may also be inserted in the revenue record and after considering and appreciating the materials and documents available on record, the Deputy Collector remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar concerned by specifically observing that other brothers of Lakha Trikam are in possession and jointly cultivating the subject land and they are also having equal share in the subject land and therefore direction is issued to the Mamlatdar to decide the matter afresh after hearing the respondents herein as well. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar & ALT initiated remand proceedings and passed an order dated 09.07.1992. In the said order, the Mamlatdar & ALT has, after considering the materials and documents as well as depositions/statements of adjacent land owners, specifically held that the legal heirs of Trikam Rupa viz. Khoda Vala, Ribha Trikam, Mala Trikam and their heirs viz. Ganda Vala, Vitthal Ribha and Bhanabhai Malabhai are cultivating their respective share of the subject land. It is also observed in the order that despite an opportunity of leading evidence was given to the petitioners to prove that Khodabhai Lakhabhai alone is cultivating the subject land, he has failed to produce any document to that effect. It is also observed by the Mamlatdar & ALT in the said order that police complaints have also been filed by both the parties against each other and disputes have been cropped up between the parties about entering into the subject land. Thereafter, twice the matter has been remanded back to the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam and lastly on 04.08.1995, the Mamlatdar & ALT passed an order reiterating the aforesaid fact and holding that other brothers of Lakha Trikam are also in possession as well as cultivating their respective share of the subject land. The said view adopted by the Mamlatdar has been confirmed by the Deputy Collector as well as Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Hence, by way of preferring present petition, petitioners assailed all the three orders passed by the revenue authorities.

17. It is pertinent to note that it is the case of the petitioners that father of deceased petitioner viz. Lakhabhai Trikambhai was the original tenant and he had purchased the subject land from the original owner in the proceedings initiated under Section 32G of the Act and therefore certificate of purchase under Section 32M of the Act has been issued in the name of Lakhabhai Trikambhai alone and since then the subject land is of the ownership and in occupation of the petitioners only and none of the respondents have any lawful right over the subject land, whereas, it is the case of the private respondents that the subject land was originally of the ownership of grand father of the petitioners as well as respondents i.e. Trikambhai Rupabhai and as he was in need of money, he sold the land to Ramjibhai Popatlal but the possession was already with Ribha Trikam and Lakha Trikam and they were jointly cultivating the said land and at earlier point of time names of Ribha Trikam and Lakha Trikam have been shown as the general tenants. It is also the case of the private respondents that notice under the provisions of Section 32G of the Act has been issued to both Ribha Trikam as well as Lakha Trikam but then after the proceedings have been initiated against Lakha Trikam only and certificate of purchase has been issued in the name of Lakha Trikam only because of some family arrangement and as per the prevalent practice at that relevant point of time. It is also the case of the private respondents herein that both the petitioners as well as private respondents herein are cultivating the subject land jointly and they are in possession of their respective share of the subject land since last many decades and therefore after recording the statements of various witnesses/neighbours and after considering and appreciating the documents as well as materials available on record, all the revenue authorities have held that including the petitioners, private respondents herein are also in possession/occupation of their respective share in the subject land and indulged into the activities of cultivation of the said parcel of land since last many years. It is pertinent to note that the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam has, vide order dated 04.08.1995, specifically held that for the disputed question of inheritance, the parties have to get the order from the competent Civil Court. Thus, it seems that the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam passed the impugned order, which is confirmed by the Deputy Collector as well as GRT, based on the possession and cultivation of the land in question by the private respondents herein since last many years. It is also pertinent to note that while passing the impugned order, it was kept open for both the parties to agitate their grievance before the competent Civil Court for their civil rights. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the revenue authorities have not exceeded their jurisdiction, as contended by learned advocate Mr. Dhotre for the petitioners.

18. It is pertinent to note that after considering and appreciating the materials, the Mamlatdar and ALT has passed the impugned order holding that all the persons are in possession and they are cultivating their respective share of the subject land and as per the provisions of Section 70(b) of the Act, the Mamlatdar is empowered to decide as to whether a person is, or was at any time in the past, a tenant, a protected tenant, or a permanent tenant. Thus, when the Mamlatdar & ALT has passed the impugned order specifically holding that private respondents herein are also having equal share in the subject land and they are in possession and cultivating the said land since last many decades and therefore their names are required to be inserted in the revenue record and the said view is confirmed by all the revenue authorities, it is not open for this Court to disturb the said finding at this juncture especially when the Mamlatdar is competent to decide the question of tenancy as well as the fact that while passing the impugned order, it is kept open for both the parties to agitate their civil rights before the competent civil court. It is the case of the petitioners that some parcels of land are not part of Block Nos. 570 and 539 i.e. the subject land and those lands have been purchased by the father of the deceased petitioner by paying the amount to the landlord in the tenancy proceedings, despite that, the authorities concerned have inserted the names of private respondents by holding that they are having equal share in the subject land and subject land has been purchased by Lakha Trikam as an administrator of the joint family from the fund of the joint family, however, the respondents have miserably failed to produce any document to show that said fund was generated by the family members and supplied to Lakha Trikam. As against this, it is the case of the respondents that petitioners have also failed to produce any document about the source of income of Lakha Trikam from which he had purchased the subject land from its original landlord. Thus, when the Mamlatdar, who is empowered to decide the question of tenancy, has already passed the order after thorough inquiry and after verifying the revenue record and when the said order is confirmed by the Deputy Collector as well as GRT, the scope of interference of this Court in the matter of concurrent findings of fact recorded by the revenue authorities concerned is very limited. Moreover, the Mamlatdar concerned has examined Talati-cum-Mantri and thereafter jumped to the conclusion that all the old survey numbers of subject land have been merged in Block Nos. 570 and 539. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to believe the argument canvassed by learned advocate for the petitioners that certain survey numbers of Block Nos. 570 and 539 are not the properties of joint family. As observed above, while passing the impugned order, it is also kept open for both the parties to agitate their civil rights before the competent civil Court.

19. Learned advocate for the petitioners has emphatically submitted that the concerned revenue authorities have initiated the proceedings belatedly i.e. almost after 33 years and therefore as per the numerous decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well this Court, if the period is not prescribed in the statute itself, in that event, the authority concerned has to take the action within reasonable period and if any action is taken beyond three years from the date of the knowledge, it cannot be said to be within the reasonable period. In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr. Dhotre has put reliance upon various decisions. It is pertinent to note that initially the notice issued under Section 84C of the Act has been withdrawn by the Mamlatdar & ALT by holding Lakha Trikam only as a tenant. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said order, immediately the respondents herein have preferred revision before the Deputy Collector. Thus, though the Mamlatdar & ALT had initiated the proceeding under Section 84C of the Act belatedly after 33 years, vide first order, the said proceedings have already been dropped by the Mamlatdar & ALT and said view is confirmed by all the revenue authorities. Thus, the suo motu proceedings initiated at the instance of the Mamlatdar under Section 84C of the Act have already been dropped and it is only when the first order came to be passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam dropping the proceedings under Section 84C by holding Lakha Trikam only as the tenant, the cause of action has arisen for the private respondents herein to challenge the said decision. It is also pertinent to note that when a person in whose favour a certificate of purchase under Section 32M of the Act is issued for and on behalf of the family and if he refuses to give the benefit of such a certificate to other family members, in that event, it is for the Mamlatdar to decide the issue under Section 70(b) of the Act as to whether other persons are tenant or not. Thus, looking to the peculiar facts of the present case, the decisions upon which reliance is being placed by learned advocate Mr. Dhotre for the petitioners would not be of any help to the petitioners.

20. At this juncture, I would like to rely upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shankerbhai Kanjibhai (supra), wherein, the court observed as under:

          "11. Chapter III of the said Act in which Section 32 finds its place captioned as special rights and privileges of tenant and provisions for distribution of land for personal cultivation". Part II of Chapter III deals with purchase of lands by tenants. Section 32 finds its place in this part. By enacting Section 32 Legislature, inter alia provided that on the first day of April, 1957 known as "Tillers' Day" every tenant shall be deemed to have purchased from his landlord free of all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said day the land held by him as tenant. In order to make effective the deemed purchase by the tenant on "Tillers' Day" the Legislature enacted Section 32G prescribing the procedure to be followed by Agricultural Lands Tribunal. The Tribunal is required to publish or cause to be published a public notice in the prescribed form in each village within its jurisdiction to all the tenants who under Section 32 are deemed to have purchased the lands, and to all other persons interested therein calling upon such persons to appear before if on the specified date. The Tribunal is required to record their statements in the prescribed manner so as to ascertain whether such tenant is or is not willing to purchase the lands held by him as tenant. If the tenant is willing to purchase the land, the Tribunal is required after giving opportunity to the tenant and the landlord to determine the purchase price of such land in accordance with provisions of Section 32H. Once the purchase price is fixed Section 32K prescribes mode of payment of price by the tenant. If such purchase price which is fixed is not paid by the permanent tenant or sub-tenant it is stipulated that it shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Section 32M thereafter provides that on the deposit of the price either in lumpsum or by deposit of last instalment of such price the Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase in the prescribed form to the tenant in respect of land. Such certificate shall be conclusive evidence of purchase.

          12. From the scheme of the Act it becomes clear that on or after the "Tillers' Day" notices are required to be issued to the tenant or all persons interested in the land. Generally the notice is sent to the person in whose name land stands in the village record or to the person who is shown to be cultivating land. When a joint family is the tenant of the land name of Karta or elderly person of the family is mentioned as person cultivating the land and he receives the notice under Section 32G of the said Act. On his expressing willingness to purchase the land certificate of purchase under Section 32M is also issued in his name since the land stands in his name in the revenue record. It would not, therefore, mean that such a person was the sole tenant of the land in question and the members of the joint family have no right because certificate of purchase is issued in favour of such person. Since joint family can be a tenant and since one of the members of joint family claims sole and exclusive tenancy excluding other co-partners or joint tenants from their right to claim the share from such parcels of lands it is required to be decided as to whether such certificate of sale issued in favour of one of the members of the family would for all times to come be regarded as conclusive so as to deny the just claim of the members of the family over the parcels of lands.

          13. The question posed for my consideration came to be indirectly considered by the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Nanba, Widow of deceased Hemantsingh Malubha and Ors. v. Ajitsingh, reported in (1976) XVII GLR 975. The learned Judge of this Court after referring to the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court held that the question whether a person is tenant or not is not limited to the narrower issue whether a person is a tenant of a particular land. Irrespective of the question whether the issue is raised by the landlord or by a tenant or a co-tenant or any other person it will still be a question whether a person is a tenant. Therefore, the question contemplated by Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act is not limited to an issue between the landlord and the tenant. It is the function of the Mamlatdar to decide whether a person is a tenant and when the legislature has used that expression there is no reason for curtailing its amplitude by saying that the issue which the Mamlatdar has to decide is only an issue whether a person is a tenant of particular landlord. In the case of Rajaram Totdram Patel v. Mahipal Mahadu Patel and Ors., the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court was called upon to decide the identical question. Before the Bombay High Court the plaintiff claimed declaration that the defendant-his brother was not entitled to be declared purchaser tenant and that the decision taken behind his back without hearing him was null and void He further claimed that actually he was in possession of the land and that the defendant should be restrained from interfering with his possession. The defendant, on the other hand, claimed that he was the sole tenant of the land and that he was rightly declared to be the tenant of the land. It was in this situation that the question arose as to whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of Sections 70 and 85 of the said Act, and further as to whether question of this nature would fall within Section 70 read with Section 85 of the said Act. Full Bench of Bombay High Court after considering various decisions of the Bombay High Court and decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhimji v. Dundappa, held that the question whether a person is a tenant is not limited to narrower issue whether a person is a tenant of a particular landlord irrespective of the question whether the question is raised by the landlord or a tenant or a co- tenant or anyother person. It will still be a question whether a person is a tenant. Therefore, even if dispute exists between a tenant and co-tenant the question would fall within the ambit of Section 70(b) and the same can be tried by Mamlatdar. It is thus clear that when two persons claim to be the owners of certain tenancy rights as in the case before me, it is a question which falls within the jurisdiction of Mamlatdar under Section 70(b) to decide whether a person is a tenant. Such controversy would arise in case where a joint family is the tenant and certificate of purchase is issued in favour of Karta or elderly member of the family. If he denies benefit of such certificate to the other members of the family they would come forward and claim the tenancy rights. It is undoubtedly true that the certificate of purchase is issued in favour of Karta or elderly member of the family. Still, however, question will be whether such certificate of purchase was issued to an individual or whether it was issued to him for and on behalf of joint family so as to ensure for the benefit of the members of the family. I am therefore of the opinion that issuance of certificate of purchase is conclusive as against the landlord only it cannot be said to be conclusive, vis-a-vis, coparceners or joint tenants who were not parties in previous proceedings under Section 32G of the said Act. Such certificate of purchase would put an end to any controversy between the landlord and the tenant. However, when it transpires that the person to whom the certificate of purchase was issued was the Karta of the joint family or elderly person of the joint family and that the tenants was of the joint family, other members of the family or co-tenants can claim the benefit of very certificate. Such certificate cannot be said to be conclusive vis-a-vis joint tenants so as to deny their just right to be deemed purchaser of the lands in question. In fact, when just claim of such joint tenants is sought to be denied by the holder of certificate of purchase, question contemplated by Section 70(b) would immediately arise, namely, whether the members of joint family are joint tenants along with the holder of certificate of purchase. Such a question necessarily falls within the ambit of Section 70(b) and as held by the learned Judge of this Court in the case of Nanba Widow of deceased Hemantsingh Maluhha and Ors. v. Ajitsingh, (supra) and the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Rajaram Totaram Patel v. Mahipal Mahadu Patel and Ors., (supra) it shall have to be tried by Mamlatdar under Section 70(b) of the said Act.

          14. In the case of Mohmadkhan Jamiyalkhan v. Dadamiya Mohamadmiya, , the learned single Judge of this Court held that under Section 70(b) read with Section 85A of the said Act whether a person is a tenant or not is a question that falls within the jurisdiction of Mamlatdar. Even a plea raised by the defendant that he is a tenant in a proceeding for possession of land from him excludes the jurisdiction even if competent Civil Court which is otherwise competent to decide the suit. The Court, therefore, held that even a competent Civil Court must refer the issued under Section 70 of the Tenancy Act to Mamlatdar. That was the case where the question arose in a proceeding under Section 84 of the said Act instituted by the landlord for summary eviction of the tenant. The brother of the tenant surrendered the parcels of land and such surrender was verified by the order of Mamlatdar under Section 15(2) of the said Act. Petitioner however was found to be in possession of the land. The landlord, therefore, filed application under Section 84 for getting possession of the land from the petitioner on the ground that lie was a trespasser. Petitioner raised question that in fact he was the tenant of the said land and the question arose as to whether this question could have been raised before the Prant Officer under Section 84 or whether he was required to refer the question to Mamlatdar and ALT. The learned single Judge of this Court relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court held that in an application under Section 84 if the question was raised whether a person concerned was a tenant or not of the land in question it is only the Mamlatdar under Section 70(b) who can decide the question whether a person is a tenant or not and the Prant Officer dealing with application under Section 84 must direct the party concerned to apply to the Mamlatdar and obtain decision from him whether a person concerned was tenant or not. Prant Officer under Section 84 has no jurisdiction to decide whether a person concerned was tenant of land in dispute. In fact, when such a question is raised the Prant Officer is required to stay his hands so far as the proceedings under Section 84 was concerned and he should ask the party concerned to approach Mamlatdar under Section 70(b) for an appropriate decision on the question of tenancy. I am, therefore, of the opinion that where in proceedings under Section 84 of the Act a question is raised by the person in possession of the land that he is also the tenant of the land or that he is the joint tenant of the land and when such a statement is doubled by the applicant who claims to be the sole tenant of the land, the dispute is between joint tenants and such dispute can only be decided by the Mamlatdar & ALT under Section 70(b). The certificate of purchase issued in favour of a person whose name appeared in the revenue record would not be conclusive vis-a-vis joint tenants whose tenancy rights he seeks to negate on the strength of certificate of purchase. It is conclusive vis-a-vis the landlord only. The members of the joint family cannot be denied their just right simply because the certificate of purchase was issued in favour of Karta of joint family or the elderly person of joint family. The very fact that the application for eviction of such joint tenants was required to be filed under Section 84 of the Act justifies the inference that such persons were in possession and continued to remain in possession as joint tenants. Therefore when in proceeding under Section 84 such persons claim to be the joint tenants, being the members of the joint family the question raised by them is as to whether they are joint tenants of the parcels of lands along with the persons in whose favour certificate of purchase under Section 32M is issued and such a question is one which can be tried by Mamlatdar under Section 70(b) of the said Act read with Section 85A of the said Act. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Dy. Collector, Vyara was fully justified in staying the proceedings before him and in directing the present respondents to move the Mamlatdar under Section 70(b) of the said Act. In fact, proceedings under Section 70(b) have already been concluded in favour of present respondents. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the first submission of Mr. Shelat and it must therefore fail."

21. Thus, from the aforesaid observations, it transpires that if the certificate of purchase is issued under Section 32M of the Act in the name of Karta or elderly person of a joint family in whose name land stands, it would not mean that such a person is the sole tenant of the land. The certificate of purchase is issued to the Karta of the family for and on behalf of the family and therefore other members of the family can also claim the benefit of such a certificate. Moreover, attention of this Court is also drawn to a G.R dated 15.03.1996, whereby, the Collectors of the State are directed to mutate the names of all the remaining brothers/sisters in the revenue record for the land of a new tenure, land given on Santhani and land where the provisions of the Act are applicable, upon the death of the elder brother whose name is mutated in the revenue record qua those categories of land. The object and reason for issuance of the aforesaid G.R. is that generally on sad demise of the original allottee or Karta of a Joint Family, the name of his elder son is mutated in the revenue record and the names of other heirs of the original allottee are not mutated and after the death of elder son or Karta of the joint family, the names of his legal heirs are mutated in the revenue record, depriving the interest of other legal heirs of the original allottee and therefore with a sole intent to safeguard the interest of other heirs of the original allottee, by way of aforesaid GR, the Collectors of the State are directed to mutate the names of remaining brothers/sisters (the heirs of original allottee) of the elder son or Karta of the joint family. Moreover, it is also found out from entry No.1129 mutated on 29.10.1948 that after the death of Trikam Rupa, being the Karta of the joint family, name of Ribha Trikam is mutated in the revenue record and in the said entry it is specifically observed that Ribha Trikam, Mala Trikam, Lakha Trikam as well as Ganda Vala are the legal heirs of Trikam Rupa and since they are residing in a joint family and Ribha Trikam being the administrator of the family, his name is required to be mutated as Karta of the joint family and therefore name of Ribha Trikam is mutated as Karta of the joint family. I have also gone through entry No.1370 mutated in the revenue record on 31.03.1959 from which it transpires that along with Lakha Trikam, name of Vibha (sic Ribha) Trikam is also shown as ordinary tenant and both Lakha Trikam and Ribha Trikam were jointly cultivating the subject land. It is also pertinent to note that during the course of hearing of this petition, direction came to be issued to learned advocate for the petitioners as well as learned AGP to produce the documents based on which the name of Ribha Trikam has been removed from the revenue record as an ordinary tenant. However, petitioners as well as learned AGP have failed to do so. I have also gone through the reasoning recorded by the Mamlatdar & ALT while passing the impugned order, which is confirmed by the Deputy Collector as well as GRT, and I am of the opinion that while keeping it open for both the parties to agitate their grievance before the competent Civil Court as regards their civil rights, the concerned revenue authority has not committed any error which warrants any interference at the hands of this Court.

22. It is also pertinent to note that there are so many discrepancies and procedural lapses on the part of the revenue authorities concerned in conducting the subject matter but considering the following aspects, I am not inclined to entertain this petition.

          i. That all the authorities have, after appreciating and considering the materials including the statements of neighbours, specifically held that the other members of the joint family are also in possession and occupation of the subject land and they are cultivating their respective share of the subject land since last many years and therefore their names are required to be inserted as co-occupiers and while passing the order, it is specifically observed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam that it is open for both the parties to agitate their grievance before the competent civil court for their civil rights.

          ii. Initially, the notices under Section 32G of the Act have been issued to Ribha Trikam as well as Lakha Trikam but thereafter name of Ribha Trikam has been removed and certificate of purchase has been issued only in the name of Lakha Trikam and learned advocate for the petitioners as well as learned AGP have failed to give any explanation and/or produce any document as to why the name of Ribha Trikam has been removed from the revenue record.

          Iii. The name of Ribha Trikam along with Lakha Trikam was also reflected in the revenue record as tenant of the original landlord. However, thereafter the name of Ribha Trikam has been removed from the revenue record and petitioner has failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence on record showing the plausible reason why the name of Ribha Trikam has been removed from the revenue record as a tenant.

          iv. Looking to the G.R dated 15.03.1996 as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Shankerbhai Kanjibhai (supra), I am of the considered view that the rights of other members of a joint family are required to be safeguarded and by doing so, the revenue authorities have not committed any error, which requires any interference at the hands of this Court.

          v. There are so many other issues which are required to be decided by the competent Civil Court by appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence and while passing the impugned order, the said aspect has been taken care of by the concerned revenue authority.

23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule discharged.