This petition challenges order dated 29/06/2005 (Annexure C) made in Revision Application No.TEN.BA.863/1992 by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT) in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances.
2. In relation to land bearing Survey Nos.184 and 185 situated at Village Runaj, Tal. Petlad proceedings under Section 32 G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act) were conducted by Mamlatdar and ALT sometime in 1961-62 and an order came to be made on 16/12/1962 holding that the tenant, viz., deceased Sanabhai Bavabhai Solanki, predecessor of the present petitioner, had categorically accepted that he was not tilling the land in question, and possession had already been handed over to the landlord.
3. The said order came to be challenged before Deputy Collector, Kheda by preferring Tenancy Appeal No.241 of 1992 stated to have been filed on 03/04/1991. The Deputy Collector recorded that the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation yet the Deputy Collector decided to hear the appeal on merits. After hearing the parties the order made by Mamlatdar and ALT was treated to be a nullity and the case remanded to the Mamlatdar and ALT to decide afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties. This order came to be made on 28/09/1992.
4. Respondent herein carried the matter by way of revision before GRT and vide order dated 29/06/2005 GRT allowed the Revision Application restoring the order made by Mamlatdar and ALT after quashing and setting aside the order made by Deputy Collector.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings were conducted by Mamlatdar and ALT sometime in 1961-62 without issuing requisite notice to deceased Sanabhai Bavabhai Solanki and the deceased was not aware of any such order having been made in December, 1962. Therefore the appeal was filed in 1991 only when knowledge about the order made in 1962 was derived by deceased Sanabhai. It was further submitted that all throughout the possession of the land in question was with the deceased and thereafter with the petitioners and therefore the order of Deputy Collector was just and proper and no interference was called for. That GRT had committed an error in disturbing the order made by Deputy Collector.
6. The facts are not in dispute inasmuch as admittedly order came to be made by Mamlatdar and ALT on 16/12/1962 in Tenancy Case No.51 holding that deceased Sanabhai had accepted before him that he was not tilling the land and was not willing to purchase. Thereafter when the appeal was preferred before Deputy Collector in 1991 the same was admittedly barred by limitation but no application for condonation of delay was filed. The Tribunal is therefore justified in holding that the reason for delay in filing the appeal before Deputy Collector of almost 29 years having not been explained the Deputy Collector could not have gone into merits without first condoning the delay, and such delay could not have been condoned in absence of any application for condonation of delay. That the order of Deputy Collector was therefore illegal.
7. The GRT could have rested its order only on this limited count. However a perusal of the order indicates that even on facts GRT has examined the record and proceedings before Mamlatdar and ALT and recorded that on 26/09/1962 deceased Sanabhai was examined on oath. GRT has thereafter gone on to state and reproduce the relevant summary of the statement of deceased Sanabhai to come to the conclusion that the order made by Mamlatdar and ALT was justified in the facts and circumstance of the case.
8. It is not necessary to reproduce and discuss the findings of fact recorded by GRT after appreciation of evidence on record. Suffice it to state that no case is made out warranting interference on such findings of fact. In the result the petition does not merit acceptance and is accordingly summarily rejected.
(D.A.Mehta, J.) sompura Top