( 1 ) THE appeal is finally heard.

( 2 ) THE short facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that one pola Haja, (since deceased), applied to Mamlatdar under Sec. 37 (2) of the bombay Land Revenue Code ("b. L. R. Code" or "code" for the sake of brevity) on the ground that the actual measurement of the farm was less by 10 acres and 10 gunthas. He pleaded for declaration under Sec. 37 (2) of the Code that the property belonged to him. The application came to be rejected by the mamlatdar vide his order dated 3-6-1981 in view of the findings that the land belonged to the Government. The matter was thereafter taken to the Revenue court which, vide its order dated 15-9-1983 set aside the order of the Mamlatdar and remanded the case. It appears that in the meantime, powers which were earlier conferred upon the Mamlatdar came to be given to the Deputy Collector. On 15-7-1991, the Deputy Collector, after reconsidering the entire material available on the record held in favour of the heirs of the deceased Pola Haja. The State did not challenge the said order passed by the Deputy Collector, but the Collector took up the matter in suo motu revision being Land Revenue application No. 5 of 1991. On 27-4-1994, the Collector set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector and rejected the claim made by Pola Haja (since deceased ).

( 3 ) AGAINST the order passed by the Collector, heirs of Pola Haja filed an appeal before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which by its order dated 3-1-1995 set aside the order passed by the Collector and restored the order passed by the Deputy Collector. Copy of the said order was received by the department on 22-1-1995. I am referring to these dates because at a later stage, it may assume importance.

( 4 ) INSTEAD of filing a suit within one year from the date of the said order or at best from the date of receipt of the copy of that order,. e. , on or before 19-1-1996, the State probably realizing that they have lost limitation for filing the suit, filed Special Civil Application No. 6533 of 1996 on 15-4-1996 in this Court. The said Special Civil Application came to be dismissed on 9/11-9-2002. The State thereafter, challenged the matter in Letters Patent Appeal No, 193 of 2002, appeal was filed on 29-11-2002 and was dismissed on 27-6-2003. Still dissatisfied, the State took up the matter before the Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1869 of 2004. However, the said Special leave Petition came to be dismissed on 8-3-2004.

( 5 ) THE State thereafter filed Civil Suit No. 560 of 2004 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajkot on 23-8-2004. They prayed that the orders passed by the authorities were illegal, the State was the owner of the property and the defendants/respondents have no right, title or interest in the property.

( 6 ) AFTER service of the notice, the defendants appeared and on 8-9-2004 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("c. P. C. " for short ). The objection raised was that as the suit was filed beyond one year and as the suit could not be entertained beyond one year by any Civil court in view of the bar contained under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 37 of the Code, the suit be held not maintainable. The application was contested by the State government, but the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajkot allowed the application vide his order dated 25-11-2004 and rejected the plaint. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2005, but the same came to be dismissed on 9-5-2006, therefore, the State has filed this appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code.

( 7 ) THE appeal has been admitted for hearing the parties on 7-2-2007 on the following substantial questions of law :

(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff- state is entitled to take protection and benefit of Sec. 14 of the Limitation act, 1963 on the ground that after disposal of the rev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document