Back
2013 Supreme(Guj) 227
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi R.Tripathi
Rameshbhai Mathurbhai Patel & Ors.
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors.
Special Civil Application No. 996 of 1997—Decided on 27/06/2013
Appearance :
Deleted, for the Petitioner No. 5.
Mr Jitendra M. Patel, Advocate for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2.2, 3 – 4.
Mr Rindani, AGP, for the Respondent(s) No. 1 – 2.
Notice Served, for the Respondent No. 3.
Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts of the case petitioner is entitled to any relief under discrelrinary Jurisdiction of the Court.
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 226 and 227 — Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 — Sections 2(6), 5, 10, 16(1) and Schedule — Declaration of excess land by Mamlatdar on 18.10.1982 — Rejecting petitioner contention about validity and legality of certificate issued by canal officer — Petitioner filed petition in the year 1999 before the Court — Sustainability — Finding of — Court held that if the Mamlatdar had not accepted the contention of the petitioner on aspect of legality and validity of certificate issued by canal officer the petitioner ought to have carried the matter to this Court at that stage because that was the point which was going to the root of the matter — Petitioner instead filed appeal before Deputy Collector and then revision and review before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal — After having failed every where petitioner has approached this Court as late as in year 1997 by this petition — The excess land was taken over by State on 28.11.1984 and granted to Harijan Samudaik Sahakari Kheti Mandali Ltd. — This clearly shows that petitioner was not vigilant about his rights — The petitioner has given reasons of delay after rejection of review application by Revenue Tribunal but same are not sufficient to inspire Court to grant relief to petitioner.
Held :
After the Mamlatdar decided the matter by judgment and order dated 18th October, 1982, an appeal was filed before the Deputy Collector in the year 1983 which the Deputy Collector decided by judgment and order dated 2.4.1983. This Court is of the opinion that if the Mamlatdar had not accepted the contention of the petitioner on the aspect of legality and validity of Certificate issued by Canal Officer, the petitioner ought to have carried the matter to this Court at that stage because that was the point which was going to the root of the matter. Be that as it may. After the Deputy Collector decided the appeal by judgment and order dated 2.4.1983, revision was filed before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal only in the year 1986. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dismissed the revision application on the point of the limitation by judgment and order dated 26.10.1990 against which, the review application was preferred which came to be decided on 4.12.1992. It is thereafter, in the year 1997 (January, 1997), the petitioner approached this Court by way of present petition. [Para 10]
The Court is required to consider whether in a matter like this, the Court will exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of a person who is found to be ‘not vigilant’ about his rights as is clear from the aforesaid dates. [Para 12]
At this juncture, learned advocate for the petitioner emphatically submitted that the delay caused in approaching this Court after the revision application was dismissed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the year 1990 and review application in the year 1992, is sought to be explained in paragraph No. 16 of the memo of the petition.
[Para 13]
The averments made in paragraph No. 16 are not found to be sufficient by this Court to change its opinion about non grant of relief to the petitioner [Para 14]
Law Laid Down :
Court will not exercise it’s discretionary Jurisdiction in favour of a person who is found to be not vigilant about his rights.
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Rameshbhai Mathurbhai Patel and others are before this Court being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 26.10.1990 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 345/1986; whereby, the learned Member of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the application on the point of limitation. The petitioner had filed a review application bearing No. TEN. C.A. No. 59/1990 which too came to be dismissed by order dated 4.12.1992 against which, the present petition is filed in the year 1997.
2. The petitioner had approached the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal being aggrieved by an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Ceiling Appeal No. 10 of 1983 which was dismissed by the Deputy Collector by order dated 2.4.1983. The said appeal was filed against the order passed by Mamlatdar & ALT (Ceiling) in Agriculture Land Ceiling Case No. 31/37/66/80. The Mamlatdar & ALT pleased to reject all contentions raised by the petitioners by judgment and order dated 18th October, 1982.
3. The facts of the case are that the present Petitioner No. 1 who was minor at the relevant time through his mother Jiviben – widow of Mayurbhai Ranchhodbhai was holding total 46 Acres and 14 Gunthas of land at Village, Timba and Village: Jetalpur but they had not filled in the form No. 2 under the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act and therefore, they were directed by an order dated 18.7.1980 under Section 16(1) and under Section 10 to fill in the form on Affidavit. As the petitioner had failed at the relevant time, the proceedings under Section 20-21 were initiated and it was in these proceedings, the Mamlatdar had an occasion to pass order dated 18th October, 1982. The facts as they stand and set out in the order of the Mamlatdar that the petitioner was holding various lands at Village: Jetalpur and at Village: Timba. The land at Village: Jetalpur, Taluka: Daskroi was 7 Acres, whereas, the land held at Village: Timba was 39 Acres and 20 Gunthas totaling to 46 Acres 20 Gunthas.
4. The land held by the petitioner were partly irrigated land and partly dry land. The land held at Village: Jetalpur, ad-measuring 7 Acres was of irrigated one and out of the land ad-measuring 39 Acres and 20 Gunthas at Village: Timba land admeasuring 28 Acres and 20 Gunthas was irrigated one. As per the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act 1960, ceiling areas are prescribed under Section 5 and while applying Section 5 of the said Act, Schedule I is required to be referred to. Scheduled I, provides for different classes of local areas and in those different classes of areas, different class of lands like (i) Irrigated by source other than private source, (ii) Irrigated by private source, this type of land is called Perennially irrigated land. Another class of land is Seasonally irrigated land. Yet another class of land is Superior dry crop land and last but not the least Dry crop land. For every class of local area, different ceilings are provided by the said schedule. The same are provided in hectares as well as in acres. On the basis of this, table by making the equivalence between various types of lands, the calculation was made to ascertain the total land held by the petitioner. The land held by the petitioner is of two types; one, Seasonally irrigated land and another, Dry crop. If a person is holding 1 Acre of land which is Seasonally irrigated land, it will be considered to be 2 Acres of Dry crop land. Such exercise is required to be undertaken because when a person holds different types of land to determine the entitlement of the person, all types of lands are required to be converted into one type and therefrom, permissible ceiling limit is to be deducted and remaining land is to be treated as excess land to deal with in accordance with law. (Gujarat Land Ceiling Act).
5. In the present case, on calculation, Authorities found that petitioner was holding the total 82 Acres and 02 Gu
