Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14791/2011 7/ 7 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14791 of
2011
=========================================================
LALITABEN
WD/O RAMCHANDRA CHAUHAN & 2 - Petitioners
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondents
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
UDAYAN P VYAS for
Petitioners : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3
MS. ARCHANA C. RAVAL LD. AGP
for Respondent : 1
None for Respondent :
2
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 04/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
The petitioners by way
of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have
challenged the order dated 28.07.1989 passed by the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.B.S.490/87 whereby the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dismissed the Revision Application and
confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector in respect of the
land in question.
Facts in brief, as
narrated in the memo of petition indicate that one Ramchandra
Chauhan, deceased held agricultural lands wherein various survey
numbers admeasuring 48 acres and 32 gunthas in aggregate in
village-Pardi, Taluka-Kamrej, District-Surat on implementation of
Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, on appointed day
deceased Ramchandra Chauhan filed Form No.2 in June, 1976,
indicating that the land in question was falling within the local
area in Class-C allowing the maximum area of 36 acres of Dry Crop
Land (Jirayat Land) as prescribed in Schedule I and Schedule II of
the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960. The family of
deceased Ramchandra Chauhan, at the time of filing Form No.2, was
consisting of self, his wife, minor son, major son and four married
daughters and an unmarried daughter. Accordingly, the Form No.2 was
filed. The Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Kamrej vide
order dated 26.03.1982 held that the said deceased Ramchandra
Chauhan held in aggregate 80 acres and 03 gunthas of equivalent Dry
Crop Land and therefore, 8 acres and 03 gunthas of equivalent Dry
Crop Land being excess of 72 acres of Dry Crop Land entitled to be
retained by said Ramchandra Chauhan was declared to be surplus and
ordered to be vested in State. Pursuant to the procedure of right
of selection for surrendering the agricultural land, under
the right to elect, the land
for surrendering the Survey Nos. 510 + 513 comprising of Block
No.336 admeasuring about 3
acres and 04 gunthas equivalent to 6 acres and 39 gunthas of Dry
Crop Land was ordered to be actually vested in the State and the
balance area of 1 acre and 04 gunthas was ordered to be waived by
the State government. As the said portion of land, if taken from out
of Survey No.593 comprising in Bolck No.429 would result into
fragmentation hit by the law. The order dated 26.03.1982 was passed
in Ceiling Case No.67/1981. The said order was taken in Revision by
Deputy Collector, Surat who quashed and set aside the said order and
remanded the matter for fresh inquiry. Upon remand, the Mamlatdar
and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Kamrej passed an order on 13.11.1986
holding that on account of number of family members being 10, the
deceased in addition to 2 units being one unit for himself and one
unit for his major son, was also entitled to get 4/5th
unit and accordingly deceased was said to be entitled to hold land
equivalent to Dry Crop Land up to ceiling area of 100 acres. Since
the total area of land equivalent to Dry Crop Land held by deceased
Ramchandra Chauhan is worked out at 80 acres and 03 gunthas i.e.
less than 100 acres of Dry Crop Land to which ceiling permitting no
piece of land was declared as excess
or surplus land liable to be vested in State. The order dated
13.11.1986 was carried in Revision being Revision Case No.300/87
under the provisions of Section 37 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands
Ceiling Act, 1960 and was quashed vide order dated 23.07.1987 and 3
acres and 04 gunthas of land equivalent to 6 acres and 39 gunthas of
Dry Crop Land from Bolck No. 336 was declared to be liable to be
vested in State. The said order was assailed by filing Revision
Application being Revision Application No. TEN.B.S.490/87 before
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal under Section 38 of the Gujarat
Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960. The said Revision was
dismissed, as could be seen from the order dated 28.07.1989, which
is impugned in this petition.
The petitioners have
attempted to show reasons belatedly challenging the same being
mutation in the revenue record made in the year 2009. The averments
made in the memo of the petition are, therefore, when the entry came
to be made, the petitioners had to challenge the order which was
passed and which has been made basis for mutation of the entry, as
the petitioners’ possession was not disturbed.
Learned advocate for
the petitioners contended that delay in filing this petition is thus
sufficiently explained and factum of possession could be said to be
a valid ground for assailing the order, as though there was an order
of Tribunal way back in the year 1989. The possession had not been
disturbed and the entry, which is sought to be made for the first
time in respect of excess land came to be certified only on
14.07.2009.
Learned advocate for
the petitioners invited this Court’s attention to the observation
made by the Tribunal while rejecting the Revision Application and
submitted that the order passed by the competent authority holding
that the petitioner’s ancestors were entitled originally to hold 100
acres of land as prescribed and the original hold was less than 100
acres. There was no requirement of any further disturbance. The
order dated 28.07.1989 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in
Revision Application No. TEN.B.S.490/87 being illegal and is
required to be set aside.
This Court is unable to
accept the submission of learned advocate for the petitioners for
the following reasons.
The
Court is not convinced with regard to the explanation tendered for
belatedly challenging the order made on 28.07.1989. The fact remains
to be noted that all the present petitioners were party in the
Revision Application and the Revision Application was filed by them.
When the Revision Application was filed by them, naturally it is
expected of the petitioners or the applicants to pursue the same to
its logical end. Mere statement with regard to their inquiring with
the advocate concerned and advocate informing them that the Revision
is pending, is itself not sufficient to inspire confidence of this
Court warranting condonation of delay, which is sizable in the
instant case. The petitioners have not produced any other material
or appropriate averment to indicate that the petitioners were not
aware about passing of the order dated 28.07.1989. The delay,
therefore, in my view is so gross as to disentitle the petitioners
to seek any relief from this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The Court is though not convinced with regard
to the ground of delay and is also not convinced with
regard to the lack of merits in the order impugned in this petition.
The petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
and, therefore, the Court needs to be mindful of the fact that the
jurisdiction to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India is a very limited jurisdiction confined to the patent
illegality and/or gross injustice. In the instant case, the findings
recorded by the Tribunal while rejecting the Revision Application,
in my view cannot be said to have brought about
any of the result mentioned hereinabove. Hence, it does not call
for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petition, thus being bereft of merits, deserves rejection and
is accordingly rejected, however, there shall be not order as to
costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
Pankaj
Top