Learned AGP Mr.Satyam Chhaya tenders two affidavits both dated 18.08.2008 sworn by Shri J.R. Naik, Deputy Collector. In the affidavit which is produced at Page. 65, the said Officer explained the reasons for mis-communication due to which learned AGP did not receive prompt instructions in the matter. He has also explained the reasons for his nonappearance before this Court on 12.8.2008 though directed by order dated 04.08.2008. Explanations are accepted. Said officer is present before the Court. His presence is noted. His presence for future hearing is dispensed with.
It is pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that private respondents namely respondents No. 3 to 8 have been served through public notice but have not chosen to appear in this proceeding. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jigar Raval for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Satyam Chhaya for respondent for final disposal of the petition.
The petitioners have challenged an order dated 1.5.2006 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeal) Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat by which revision application of the petitioners came to be rejected only on the ground of delay.
Issue pertains to entries in the revenue record with respect to land bearing survey No.133/2 of village Singrot, Taluka Vadodara. The petitioners had before the Revenue Secretary challenged an order dated 8.8.2000 passed by the Collector by which the Collector was pleased to delete entry No. 1329 which was made on the basis of a Will. The Collector further directed initiation of the proceedings under Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act( the tenancy Act for short).
Only on the ground that the Principal Secretary had rejected the revision application on delay and not on merits, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the petitioners to present their case before the Secretary. It is true that there was some delay in filing the revision application. However, the petitioners had explained the delay by pointing out that their father expired on 27.8.2003 and since they were looking after affairs pertaining to the land, they had not been able to file the revision application in time. Such explanation should have been considered liberally and only on the ground of delay substantive rights of the parties should not have been allowed to be decided against them.
Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 1.5.2006 is quashed. Proceedings are remanded to the Principal Secretary for consideration of revision application of the petitioners on merits.
Learned AGP points out that proceedings under Section 84C of the tenancy Act have already been instituted and after one round of remand, are pending before the Mamlatdar. Nothing stated in this order or pendency of revision application before the Secretary, would come in way of Mamlatdar in deciding such proceedings in accordance with law. The petitioners shall not seek adjournment on this ground.
With these observations and directions, the petition is disposed of.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (raghu) Top