( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Chhaya, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. With the consent of the learned Advocates for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today.

( 2 ) THE question which arises for the consideration of this Court in the present petition is as to whether the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has the jurisdiction under the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act to entertain the appeal against the order passed by the Collector or his delegatee under Section 39a of the Bombay Land Revenue Code or not.

( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Sejpal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chhaya, learned AGP for the State Authorities.

( 4 ) IT appears that the proceedings were initiated by the Mine Supervisor, Geological Department against the petitioner under Section 39a of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" ). As per Section 39a of the Code, the powers are with the Collector, however, as per the communication dated 9. 12. 2006 received by the learned AGP from the Mamlatdar, Rajula, vide Notification No. RTPWR1056-150235a dated 25. 1. 1957 the powers of the Collector are delegated to the Mamlatdar and, therefore, as the Mamlatdar, being the delegatee of the Collector under the Code, had powers and jurisdiction to entertain such proceedings, the application was made by the Mine Supervisor before the Mamlatdar, Rajula, which was registered as Case No. 3/2004. The Mamlatdar conducted the proceedings and ultimately on 16. 5. 2005 the order was passed, whereby it was concluded by the Mamlatdar that the petitioner, who was defendant therein has extracted minerals unauthorisedly from the Government land reserved for gouchar and, therefore, value of Rs. 67,280/- and the royalty of Rs. 8,410/- was ordered to be paid to the Government. The said order of the Mamlatdar is produced at Annexure "a".

( 5 ) IT appears that against the order of the Mamlatdar, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the Collector under Section 203 of the Code, but he was communicated vide letter dated 31. 5. 2005 that the appeal was not maintainable before the Collector and the papers of the appeal were returned. The petitioner thereafter approached before the Dy. Collector, Rajula and he received the communication dated 24. 6. 2005 from the office of the Dy. Collector that the appeal was not maintainable before the Dy. Collector. It appears that the petitioner thereafter preferred revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, but the petitioner was communicated vide letter dated 3. 10. 2005 that such revision was not maintainable before the Tribunal and, therefore, the revision was returned back to the petitioner. The petitioner also preferred appeal before the Additional Director, Geological Science and Minerals, Department of Government, but vide communication dated 9. 1. 2006, the petitioner was informed that the appeal was not maintainable before him and the appeal was returned back to the petitioner. It is under these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring the present petition for challenging the order passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 39a of the Code.

( 6 ) THE learned Advocates appearing for both the sides were heard on the contentions of the availability of alternative remedy as per the provisions of the Code read with the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957.

( 7 ) THERE is no dispute on the point that the powers were exercised by the Mamlatdar under Section 39a of the Code. It is true that as per the language of Section 39a of the Code the powers are with the Collector and the decision as to the value of such natural products is made as conclusive. However, as recorded hereinabove, vide order dated 25. 1. 1957 of the State Government the powers are delegated to the Mamlatdar and, therefore, the Mamlatdar has exercised the power as delegatee of the Collector under Section 39a of the Code. Hence, the order passed by the Mamlatdar, impugned in this petition is under Section 39a of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document