1. By way of this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a. Your Lordships be pleased to admit this petition.
b. Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction holding that the order passed by the respondent No.1 on 21-06-2010 in Revision Application No. MViVi/JMN/SNR/32/2009 is bad in law, unconstitutional and it be quashed and set aside and the respondent No.1 be directed to decide the revision petition of the petitioners on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing after condoning the delay.
c. Your Lordships be pleased to direct that the execution and implementation of the order passed by the respondent No.1 on 24-06-2010 in application for stay in Revision Application No. MViVi/JMN/SNR/32/2009 be stayed pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition.
d. Your Lordships be pleased to allow the petitioners to file this petition on the basis of the copy of the order of the respondent No.1, Dt.24-06-2010 with the copy received under the RTI Act by the respondents.
e. Your Lordships be pleased to grant such other order and further relief/s that may deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The facts which can be carved out from the record of the petition are that forefather of the petitioners were owners and occupiers of the land bearing survey No.15 of Village Bhojpara, Taluka Chotila, District Surendranagar. It transpires that the land in question was allotted by the Mamlatdar by an order dated 29.6.1970 and entries No.74 and 76 were mutated in the revenue record relating to the fact of such allotment. It is the case of the petitioners that forefathers of the petitioners and thereafter, the petitioners as legal heirs continued in possession of the land in question. It further transpires from the record that the Deputy Collector, Limbadi by an order dated 26.10.2004 has forfeited the land in question considering it to be a breach of condition as the land was not being cultivated. The aforesaid order of the Deputy Collector, Limbadi was subject matter of appeal before the Collector, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.9.2006. The aforesaid orders came to be challenged by way of a revision which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.6.2010. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 24.6.2010, the present petition is filed.
3. Heard Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Asmita Patel, learned AGP for the respondents.
4. Mr.
Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners candidly submitted that there is a delay in challenging the aforesaid order dated 24.6.2010. However, this Court may take a lenient view while condoning such delay and examine the matter on merits.
5. On perusing the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Limbadi dated 26.10.2004, it transpires that since 9 years from the date of passing of the order, the land was not being utilized by the allottee for the purpose for which it was allotted and on the aforesaid ground, the land was forfeited. Even on perusal of the order passed by the Collector, it appears that the authority has considered the case of the petitioners and on the basis of the evidence on record, the Collector has dismissed the appeal by recording that since 14 years, the land has remained fallow and the same has not been utilized by the petitioners. Similarly, on perusal of the order impugned passed by the Secretary in revision dated 24.6.2010, it further transpires that the order passed by the Collector dated 11.9.2006 came to be challenged by way of filing a revision under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code after almost a period of three years. The revisional authority has also considered the fact that the land in question so allotted has remained unutilized and fallow and considering the delay on the part of the petitioners in filing the aforesaid revision, as recorded above, after a period of about three years, no error is found in the impugned order dated 24.6.2010. The learned advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to point out any error much less any error apparent on the face of the record which warrants interference of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. The petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby rejected in limine with no order as to costs.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya Top