Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.N.Divecha
BHIKHABHAI MAVJIBHAI PATEL - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A.2338 of 1986
Decided On : 09/29/1993
Court is unable to agree with Shri Shah for the petitioner in his submission to the effect that the Tribunal ought not to have permitted the respondent herein to raise such a plea for defeating the just case of the present petitioner. The Supreme Court in the case has clearly held that, if a government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and, if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the Court. The Apex Court has however reiterated that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a government or a public authority.
[Para 4]
Constitution of India,1950 - Art. 227 - Dismissal of revision application by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad as hopelessly time-barred - Approach of the Tribunal in such matters of condonation of delay - Held, unless applicant is guilty of gross unexplained delay or have deleberately delayed with some ulterior motive application for condonation of delay should normally be accepted.
Unless the applicant making the application for condonation of delay is guilty of gross unexplained delay or is charged with deliberate delay with some ulterior motive, the application for condonation of delay should normally and ordinarily be accepted. This Court has in terms held that substantial justice lies in deciding the matter on merits rather than disposing it of on technicalities.
[Para 7]
( 1 ) THE decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 30/07/1984 in Revision application No. TEN. B. A. 590 of 1984 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Thereby the Tribunal rejected the petitioners revisional application against the order passed by the Assistant collector at Dholka on 5th October, 1977 in Ceiling Appeal No. 199 of 1977 as hopelessly time-barred.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are not many and not much in dispute. The petitioner was found holding certain parcels of land in all admeasuring 45 acres 7 gunthas in village Moti Boru, Taluka Dholka, District ahmedabad (Rural) on 1/04/1976. The Mamlatdar and Agricultural lands Tribunal (No. 4) at Dholka (the first authority for convenience) undertook the necessary inquiry under Sec. 20 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling act, 1960 (the Act for brief) to find out whether or not the petitioners holding was in excess of the ceiling area fixed thereunder. It came to be registered as Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1976 (Moti Boru ). After recording evidence and hearing the parties, by his order passed on 21/02/1977 in Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1976, the first authority declared the petitioners holding to be in excess of the ceiling area by 6 acres 7 gunthas. Its copy is at Annexure a to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Assistant Collector at Dholka. His appeal came to be registered as Ceiling Appeal No. 199 of 1977. By his order passed on 5/10/1977 in the aforesaid appeal, the Assistant Collector at Dholka dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure b to this petition. It appears that, in the meantime, the compensation proceedings with respect to the surplus land declared under the order at Annexure a to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure b to this petition came to be initiated by the first authority some time in 1980. It appears that some compensation was fixed for the surplus land. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the appellate authority. It appears that appeal came to be withdrawn. The petitioner thereafter invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad by means of his revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 590 of 1984 questioning the correctness of the order passed by the first authority at Annexure a to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure b to this petition. By its decision rendered on 30/07/1984 in the aforesaid revisional application, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad rejected it as hopelessly timebarred. Its copy is at Annexure c to this petition. The petitioner has thereupon invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the approach of the Tribunal and its decision pursuant thereto at Annexure C to this petition.
( 3 ) SHRI Shah for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner approached the Tribunal with a specific case that he was given no intimation of the appellate order at Annexure b to this petition, and as such the tribunal was not justified in rejecting the petitioners revisional application without recording a finding to the effect that the appellate order at annexure b to this petition was in face served to him. Shri Shah for the petitioner has also criticised the approach of the Tribunal in dealing with the matter more particularly when it permitted the respondent herein to press into service the bar of limitation for frustrating the petitioners just case. As against this, Shri Mehta for the respondent has urged that the Tribunal has recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioner in fact knew of the appellate order at Annexure b to this petition as admitted by him during the compensation proceedings initiated some time in 1980 with respect to the surplus land declared by the order at
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
