1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner, in order to ventilate his grievances to the effect that, in spite of the directions contained in order dated 27.08.1998 passed in Special Civil Application No.4983 of 1996, the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Surat has not decided Ceiling Case No.372 of 1976, of the petitioner.
2. It is submitted by Mr.Mehul S. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is a senior citizen and has suffered great hardship due to the inaction on the part of the respondent. That even after a period of 13 years from the date of passing of the above mentioned order by the High Court, the case of the petitioner has not been decided. It is further submitted that the record of the Ceiling Case of the petitioner was misplaced in the office of the respondent. However, the petitioner has provided a complete set of papers to the Mamlatdar, therefore, there is no excuse for the delay.
3. Mr.Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that pursuant to the order dated 05.03.2012 of this Court, the Mamlatdar is present before the Court, today. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that as the papers of the case had been lost, the matter could not be decided. However, now the Mamlatdar has decided the case of the petitioner, by order dated 06.03.2012, a copy of which has been communicated to the petitioner.
4. The Mamlatdar, who is present in the Court, has expressed his sincere apology for the delay that has been caused in deciding the case of the petitioner.
5. Mr.Mehul S. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that he is in receipt of the copy of the said order and shall be taking steps, in order to challenge the same in separate proceedings.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, and as the prayers made by the petitioner for decision of the Ceiling Case No.372 of 1976, have now been redressed by passing of the order dated 06.03.2012, nothing further remains to be adjudicated by this Court. However, it cannot escape the notice of this Court that the decision has been rendered only after issuance of notice on 05.03.2012, by which the respondent-Mamlatdar had been directed to be remained present before the Court. Misplacing the papers of the case is not a very relevant ground for the delay of 13 years. The petitioner is a senior citizen and has been made to run from pillar to post, only for a decision of his own case, which the respondent is bound to render, in accordance with law. Needles to say, this is a sorry state of affairs. However, the present incumbent of the post of the Mamlatdar would not have been in office at the time of passing of the order, and there may have been several incumbents in between; therefore, responsibility cannot be fixed on any particular person. It is hoped, and expected of the respondent, that the orders of this Court will be obeyed, and action taken pursuant to them scrupulously and expeditiously.
7. The learned advocate for the petitioner has stated that the petition may be disposed of, in view of the passing of the order dated 06.03.2012 in Ceiling Case No.372 of 1976.
8. In view of the above, as the grievance of the petitioner as voiced in the petition has been redressed, the petition is disposed of, as having become infructuous. Notice is discharged.
(Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.) rakesh/ Top