Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5806/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5806 of 2009
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RABARI
DEVSHIBHAI MAVJIBHAI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MS
MAITHILI MEHTA, AGP. for Petitioner(s) : 1 -
2.
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
Date
: 30/06/2009
ORAL
ORDER
1 This
petition, at the instance of the State, challenges order dated
18.2.1993, made by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application
No.TEN.BA 786 of 1992.
2 As
the petition has been sworn on 13.5.2009 the Court called upon the
petitioner to tender explanation for the delay of more than 16
years.
3 Learned
Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance on affidavit dated
29.6.2009 of Mamlatdar, Chuda, material portion of which reads as
under :
I say and submit that the
Collector, Surendranagar had vide letter dated 17th April
1993 had informed the Revenue department Gandhinagar to file an
Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court challenging the order of the
Hon’ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 18th Feb 1993. I
say and submit that the revenue department had vide letter dated
8th January 1997 informed the Government Solicitor to file
an Appeal challenging the said order dated dated 18th Feb
1993.
I say and submit that the
Government Solicitor with the covering letter of the Collector dated
12th March 1997 was handed over the copy of the said
order. I say and submit that thereafter a reminder was sent to the
Government Solicitor on 25th August 1998 inquiring the
status of the matter. I say and submit Report of Circle Officer
Chuda Dated 19th Feb 1999. I say and submit that on 17th
Oct.2002 another reminder was sent by the Mamlatdar to the
Government Solicitor to file the Appeal if not filed.
I say and submit that
thereafter the system of Government Solicitor got abolished and all
the matters were transferred to Government Pleader’s office Gujarat
High Court therefore there was a further delay in filing the Appeal.
I say and submit that on 24th Oct 2007 the Deputy
mamlatdar (supply) Chuda had made a further inquiry on 23rd
Oct 2007 in the said issue .
4 Thus
it is apparent that even if one computes the period of limitation
from 17.4.1993 there is no explanation forthcoming for the delay
between the said day upto 8.1.1997. Apart from that the subsequent
paragraph also reveals that the time which has been consumed does
not explain the delay which has occurred in preferring the petition.
5 Hence,
without entering into merits of the controversy the petition is
summarily rejected as being time barred by delay and laches.
Sd/-
(D.A.Mehta,
J.)
M.M.BHATT
Top