K. A. PUJ, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned judgment and order dated 1-7-1999 and 14-10-1999 passed by the learned Member, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. TEN. A.S. 3 of 1999 and Restoration Application No. TEN. D.S. 8 of 1999 respectively.

2. This Court has issued notice on 21-6-2000 and petition was admitted on 18-10-2000. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 learned Assistant Government Pleader appeared and affidavit-in-reply is filed by Dy. Collector, Olpad, Surat on 30-10-2000. Despite service of notice and rule nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent No.3.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner's grand-father, namely, Shri Premabhai Dhanabhai was the tenant over the land bearing Survey No. 263 admeasuring 2 acres and 16 gunthas situated in Orma. By virtue of will executed by the said Premabhai Dhanabhai, who died on 17 -1-1987, the name of the petitioner was entered into the revenue record vide Mutation Entry No. 250 and as' such the petitioner was in occupation and possession of the said land bearing Survey No. 263 situated in village Orma, which was the Inam village under the provisions of the Act. On abolition of the Inam of the Inamdar, the proceedings were initiated by the respondent No. 2 herein for the publication of the names of the occupiers over the agricultural lands in the Inam village and the objections were called for under the public notice dated 15-2-1997. The respondent No.3 raised his objections in the writing under application dated 15-6-1997.

4. It is also the case of the petitioner that he is paying the land revenue for the said land bearing Survey No. 263 situated in village Orma. His name was already shown in the revenue records as occupiers while the name of the respondent No. 3 has not been recorded anywhere in the revenue records, and as such, he has no right, title or interest in the land in question. However, the respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 30-7-1998 declared and held that the mutation in the name of the petitioner was against the provision of the Act and without consent of the lnamdar, therefore he ordered the land in question to be vested in the Government and further directed the Mamlatdar to initiate proceedings under Sec. 32P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The respondent No. 2 without having jurisdiction to decide the matter under the Tenancy Act acted beyond the scope of his power under the Act and passed the order on 30-7-1998.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Dy. Collector, the petitioner preferred an Appeal under. the' provisions of the Act before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal being Appeal No. TEN. A.S. 3 of 1999 and also prayed for interim stay. The petitioner had also filed a separate application for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. The learned Member of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal rejected the said application for condonation of delay. The learned Member of Tribunal rejected the delay condonation application on preliminary hearing at preliminary stage and did not entertain the appeal as the delay. was not ordered to be condoned. The petitioner's Advocate was not present at the time of hearing of the preliminary hearing of the appeal on the question of condonation of delay.

6. On coming to know of the order dated 1-7-1999, after seeking legal advice he filed a Restoration Application No. TEN. D.S. 8 of 1999 before the learned Member of Tribunal, since the order dated 1-7-1999 was passed without hearing the petitioner or his Advocate. The said application was also rejected and not entertained on the ground that the said restoration application was not admissible under Regulation 20 as main appeal was not dismissed for default.

7. Being aggrieved by the two orders passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed present petition before this Court.

8. Mr. Dhirendra M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document