NAGJIBHAI RAVJIBHAI KACHHADIYA & 2 - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 7 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : [SCA Nos. 10954/2010 & 10958/2010] MR VIKRAM J THAKOR for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. MR PRANAV DAVE AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2 - 8.
Appearance : [SCA Nos. 10957/2010] MR VIKRAM J THAKOR for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MR RASHESH RINDANI AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
8. ========================================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 15/09/2010 ORAL COMMON ORDER
1. As common questions on law and facts are involved in this group of petitions, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27.09.1990 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, in Revision Application No. TEN.B.R.10/88, whereby the said revision application was dismissed.
3. The short facts of the case are that the petitioners are the owner and occupier of the part of the land bearing Survey No. 67 situated in sim of Village Bhayu-khakhariay. It is the case of the petitioners that originally proceedings under the Ceiling Act were initiated against the original owner in respect of their various lands including the land in question. In the said proceedings, certain land was declared as excess vacant land. However, vide order dated 01.06.1976, the land in question was held to be retainable land. In view of the introduction of amendment in the Ceiling Act, the Mamlatdar & ALT initiated proceedings in respect of the holding of the original owner. The Mamlatdar & ALT vide order dated 13.09.1982 dropped the said proceedings on the ground that the proceedings in respect of the lands were already undertaken and the same has been concluded. Against the said order, the State Government preferred appeal before the Dy. Collector, which came to be allowed vide order dated 30.05.1983 and the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar & ALT for considering afresh. Pursuant thereto, the Mamaltdar & ALT vide order dated 12.03.1984 declared certain land as excess vacant land. Against the said order, appeal was preferred which came to be allowed and the matter was again remanded to the Mamaltdar & ALT and the Mamaltdar & ALT declared certain land as excess vacant land.
3.1. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Dy. Collector, which came to be allowed vide order dated 30.06.1987 and again the matter was remanded to the Mamaltdar & ALT. The Mamaltdar & ALT conducted the proceedings and vide order dated 24.01.1986 declared certain land as excess vacant land. Against the order dated 30.06.1987, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Dy. Collector, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.12.1987. Against the said order, the petitioners and the original owners of the land in question preferred Revision Application No. TEN/BA/10/88 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioners received notice u/s. 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in respect of the revenue entry and it was found that the lands in question were recorded at the government head. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners on perusing the documents received by them came to know that the said revision application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.09.1990. Hence, these petitions.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. From the record it transpires that the order of the Mamaltdar & ALT was passed on 30.06.1987, which was confirmed by the Dy. Collector vide order dated 28.12.1987 and against the said order, revision application was preferred before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 27.09.1990 dismissed the said revision application. The said order is ought to be challenged by way of present petitions which were filed only in 2010 i.e. after a period of about 20 years. In other words, by way of filing the present petitions, the petitioners had sought to challenge the order which was passed before about 20 years. In my opinion, the order of the Mamlatdar & ALT which was confirmed by the Dy. Collector and which has achieved finality by the order dated 27.09.1990 passed by the Tribunal, these petitions are not required to be entertained. Therefore, only on the ground of delay, these petitions deserve to be dismissed.
5. Consequently, the petitions stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top