1 By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. 184 of 2007 dated 15.2.2012 whereby the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the Revision at the admission stage confirming the order passed by the lower authorities. Heard Mr. Udayan P Vyas, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. It transpires from the record that the impugned order is a second round of litigation, wherein the authorities and more particularly the Tribunal, while dismissing the petition has categorically come to the conclusion on the basis of the fact on record that the father of the present petitioner, during his life time, has never requested or demanded or claimed that he was tenant on the land in question and the present petitioner after lapse of 21 years has raised claim that his deceased father was a tenant on the land in question. The authority below i.e. Deputy Collector has also on the basis of the record arrived at a finding that the petitioner has no right as his father was not a tenant. Considering the concurrent findings, this Court finds that this is not a fit case for interference in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution because neither the petitioner has been able to prove his case before the authorities nor the learned Counsel for the petitioner has been able to show any error much less an error apparent on face of record. Hence, the petition is meritless and the same is dismissed in limine, however no costs.
Sd/-
(R.M.
Chhaya, J.) M.M.BHATT Top