1. Heard Mr.S.M. Shah, learned counsel appearing with Mr.D.P. Kinariwala for the petitioners, Mr.P.M. Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr.Ronak Raval, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. What is challenged in the present petition is order dated 18.03.2011 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN/BS/115 of 2003 whereby, the Tribunal has been pleased to partly allow the Revision Application and remand the matter to the Deputy Collector, Choryasi.
3. Respondent No.1 herein, represents the original owners whereas, the present petitioners are the tenants, who were granted Form-9 by the respondent-authorities.
challenged before the Deputy Collector was order dated 18.10.1976 which indicates that there was delay of approximately 27 years. Respondent No.1 is the heir of the original landlord. The Record and Proceedings from the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal were called for, more particularly, to examine as to whether the Deputy Collector, Choryasi, while entertaining the appeal filed by respondent No.1, has considered the aspect of delay or not.
5. From the memo of appeal which was presented before the Deputy Collector, a copy of which was tendered by Mr.Raval, learned A.G.P., it appears that the same does not indicate that for what reasons, the appeal was preferred by respondent No.1 after lapse of 27 years. It appears from the order passed by the Deputy Collector that the certificate, as provided under Section 32-M was issued on 26.09.1983.
6. In view of the fact that the orders passed by the authorities under the Tenancy Act were passed in the year 1976, proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 after lapse of 27 years were hopelessly delayed.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, more particularly, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pune SCA/6292/2011 3/3 ORDER Municipal Corporation V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2007(3) GLR 2610, the matter requires consideration. Hence, Rule. Mr.P.M. Bhatt, learned counsel waives service of Rule for respondent No.1 and Mr.Ronak Raval, learned A.G.P. waives service of Rule for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Status-quo to be maintained by both the parties. Respondent Nos.2 and 3-authorities shall provide copy of the necessary orders that are required by respondent No.1.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) Hitesh