1. Heard learned advocate Mr. C.P. Champaneri for learned advocate Mr. Ashish H. Shah for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Ronak B. Raval for respondent No.1.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of the land situated at Village Borana, Taluka Limdi, District Surendranagar admeasuring 16 acres. It transpires from the record that the petitioner filed an application as contemplated under Section 37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") on 3.10.1998 for ownership of the said land in question. In short the case of the petitioner is that his forefathers were allotted the said land in question by the then Girazdar and since then the petitioner is in possession of the agricultural land as described hereinabove. Considering the fact that according to the revenue record, the aforesaid land is registered as a traverse, the Mamlatdar, Limdi by an order dated 24.4.2000 came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not been able to prove that the land in question is a private land and dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Collector, Limdi. The aforesaid proceedings culminated into an order dated 7.12.2000, whereby the Deputy Collector, Limdi has confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 24.4.2000. Further, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 7.12.2000 passed by the Deputy Collector, Limdi, the petitioner filed Revision Application No. TEN/AA/27 of 2001 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal also by order dated 13.10.2011 confirmed the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector.
3. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging all the three concurrent findings of fact.
4. Considering the provisions of Section 37 and more particularly, sub-section (3) of the Code, the present petition is not maintainable. As provided under sub-section (3) of Section 37 of the Code, the petitioner has an exhaustive alternative remedy i.e. a substantive suit. It goes without saying that the last order impugned is dated 13.10.2011 and as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 37 of the Code, the petitioner can challenge the same by way of filing a suit within one year from the date of such an order. Since the petitioner has exhaustive alternative remedy as provided under the Code, this petition is not maintainable and therefore, the same is not entertained.
5. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not examined the matter on merits and as alternative remedy by way of filing a suit, as observed hereinabove, is available, this petition is not entertained. It will be open for the petitioner to file a suit if he so desires, which shall be decided on its own merits, as this petition is not entertained only on the aforesaid ground.
6. With these observations, the petition stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya Top