Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10954/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10954 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10957 of 2010
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10958 of 2010
=========================================================
NAGJIBHAI
RAVJIBHAI KACHHADIYA & 2 – Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 7 – Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
: [SCA Nos. 10954/2010 & 10958/2010]
MR
VIKRAM J THAKOR for Petitioner(s) : 1 – 2.
MR PRANAV DAVE AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 – 8.
Appearance
: [SCA Nos. 10957/2010]
MR VIKRAM
J THAKOR for Petitioner(s) : 1 – 2.
MR RASHESH RINDANI AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 –
8.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 15/09/2010
ORAL
COMMON ORDER
1. As
common questions on law and facts are involved in this group of
petitions, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. By
way of these petitions, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set
aside the impugned order dated 27.09.1990 passed by the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal, in Revision Application No. TEN.B.R.10/88, whereby
the said revision application was dismissed.
3. The
short facts of the case are that the petitioners are the owner and
occupier of the part of the land bearing Survey No. 67 situated in
sim of Village Bhayu-khakhariay. It is the case of the petitioners
that originally proceedings under the Ceiling Act were initiated
against the original owner in respect of their various lands
including the land in question. In the said proceedings, certain
land was declared as excess vacant land. However, vide order dated
01.06.1976, the land in question was held to be retainable land. In
view of the introduction of amendment in the Ceiling Act, the
Mamlatdar & ALT initiated proceedings in respect of the holding
of the original owner. The Mamlatdar & ALT vide order dated
13.09.1982 dropped the said proceedings on the ground that the
proceedings in respect of the lands were already undertaken and the
same has been concluded. Against the said order, the State Government
preferred appeal before the Dy. Collector, which came to be allowed
vide order dated 30.05.1983 and the matter was remanded to the
Mamlatdar & ALT for considering afresh. Pursuant thereto, the
Mamaltdar & ALT vide order dated 12.03.1984 declared certain land
as excess vacant land. Against the said order, appeal was preferred
which came to be allowed and the matter was again remanded to the
Mamaltdar & ALT and the Mamaltdar & ALT declared certain
land as excess vacant land.
3.1. Against
the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Dy.
Collector, which came to be allowed vide order dated 30.06.1987 and
again the matter was remanded to the Mamaltdar & ALT. The
Mamaltdar & ALT conducted the proceedings and vide order dated
24.01.1986 declared certain land as excess vacant land. Against the
order dated 30.06.1987, the petitioners preferred appeal before the
Dy. Collector, which came to be dismissed vide order dated
28.12.1987. Against the said order, the petitioners and the original
owners of the land in question preferred Revision Application No.
TEN/BA/10/88 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Thereafter, the
petitioners received notice u/s. 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue
Code in respect of the revenue entry and it was found that the lands
in question were recorded at the government head. Pursuant thereto,
the petitioners on perusing the documents received by them came to
know that the said revision application was dismissed by the Tribunal
vide order dated 27.09.1990. Hence, these petitions.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. From the record it transpires that the order of the
Mamaltdar & ALT was passed on 30.06.1987, which was confirmed by
the Dy. Collector vide order dated 28.12.1987 and against the said
order, revision application was preferred before the Tribunal and the
Tribunal vide order dated 27.09.1990 dismissed the said revision
application. The said order is ought to be challenged by way of
present petitions which were filed only in 2010 i.e. after a period
of about 20 years. In other words, by way of filing the present
petitions, the petitioners had sought to challenge the order which
was passed before about 20 years. In my opinion, the order of the
Mamlatdar & ALT which was confirmed by the Dy. Collector and
which has achieved finality by the order dated 27.09.1990 passed by
the Tribunal, these petitions are not required to be entertained.
Therefore, only on the ground of delay, these petitions deserve to be
dismissed.
5. Consequently,
the petitions stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top