1. By preferring this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.08.1978, passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, City (“ALT” for short), the order dated 15.04.2011, of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, confirming the aforestated order of the Mamlatdar and ALT, and the order dated 13.10.2011, of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, confirming the above-stated order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms.
2. The brief facts, relevant for the decision of the petition are, that the petitioners are the heirs of the erstwhile owner of land bearing City Survey No.360 of village Nikol, District: Ahmedabad, admeasuring 1 Acre and 37 Gunthas. In respect of the said land, Dahyabhai Kirparam, who was cultivating the land since 1947-48, was declared as a “Protected Tenant” as on 01.04.1957, by the Mamlatdar and ALT, in Tenancy Case No.531/1978, on 07.08.1978, subject to the restrictions under Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“the Act” for short), and the purchase price of the land in question was fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Respondents Nos.1.1 to 1.5 are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenant of the land in question. The respondents have converted the land into non-agricultural land on payment of premium on 21.02.2011, and the land is now non-agricultural land. Amrutlal Fulshankar Trivedi, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners Nos.2 to 4, passed away sometime in the year 2010. After his death, the petitioners challenged the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, who, by order dated 15.04.2011, rejected the application of the petitioners on the ground that it had been filed after a delay of 32 years. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Collector, the petitioners filed a revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal that has been rejected by the aforementioned impugned order, giving rise to the filing of the petition.
3. Mr.Atit D.Thakore, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that the application of the petitioners has been wrongly rejected on the ground of delay by the Deputy Collector and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The petitioners were not aware of the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT and it is only after the death of their father that the petitioners became aware of the said order and challenged the same. It is submitted that the respondent-authorities ought to have gone into the merits of the case after calling for the record and should not have rejected the case of the petitioners on the ground of delay, as no Notice under Section 32G of the Act was issued by the Mamlatdar and ALT while declaring the predecessor-in-title of the respondents a tenant and fixing the purchase price, and the entire procedure of transferring the land in favour of the tenant by the Mamlatdar was illegal. That, the petitioners have a good case on merits. No inquiry had been conducted by the Mamlatdar and ALT before passing the impugned order, which aspect has been overlooked by the Deputy Collector and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The order of the Mamlatdar and ALT is unjust and illegal, therefore, the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, upholding the same, are also unsustainable in law. It is contended that this Court, by exercising supervisory jurisdiction, may correct the impugned orders and accept the prayers made by the petitioners.
4. Mr.Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader, who has appeared on supply of an advance copy of the petition, has opposed the petition and has submitted that there is no explanation, whatsoever, for the delay of 32 years. Further, there is material on record to show that the erstwhile land owner had participated in the tenancy proceedings before the Mamlatdar and ALT and did not raise any objection for 32 years after the said proceedings, till his death, therefore, the petition be rejected.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the averments made in the petition, contents of the impugned orders and other documents on record.
6. There is no dispute regarding the fact that by order dated 07.08.1978, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents was declared a tenant of the land in question by the Mamlatdar and ALT, and an order was passed to fix the purchase price. The stand of the respondents / tenants before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is that they have been cultivating the land since the year 1947-
48. Admittedly, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioners Nos.2 to 5, who was the erstwhile land-owner, and who passed away in the year 2010, did not challenge the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 07.08.1978, or raise any dispute regarding the tenancy, during his lifetime. It is only after his death that the petitioners have raised the present dispute regarding the legality of the tenancy proceedings, praying that the entire proceedings be declared illegal. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that no Notice was issued during the tenancy proceedings. This submission is belied from the record. In the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, it is mentioned that the original land-owner had deposed before the Mamlatdar and ALT during the tenancy proceedings, and appended his signature thereto. The original land owner died 32 years after the passing of the order by the Mamlatdar and ALT. During all these years, right upto his death, he did not raise any dispute regarding the tenancy proceedings. It is neither believable, nor probable, that the petitioners had no knowledge of the said proceedings. If the original land owner himself was not aggrieved by the tenancy proceedings in which he has participated, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to dispute the same at this highly belated stage.
7. Admittedly, the petitioners have not filed any application for condonation of delay before initiating the proceedings, and neither has the delay been explained, leave alone sufficient cause shown. Having remained silent for such a long period of time, the original land owner has acquiesced to the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any legal, fundamental or indefeasible right of the petitioners has been violated. The petitioners have raised a challenge to the tenancy proceedings after a gross, and unexplained delay of 32 years without showing sufficient cause for the same, as has rightly been held by the revenue authorities and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the impugned orders.
8. After considering all aspects of the matter, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders of the revenue authorities and the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, so as to warrant interference.
9. The petition is devoid of merit and deserves rejection. It is, accordingly, rejected.
(Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.) (sunil)