Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 802
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
K.J. Thaker, J.
Devchandbhai Bachubhai Vaja and others - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Gujarat and others - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 8721 of 2011
Decided on : 21-8-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shital R. Patel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Deceased Litigant, Ronak Raval, Hitesh N. Acharya, Notice Served, Notice Unserved.
Important Point – If party acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning delay.
Headnote:Constitution of India – Article 227 – Writ petition – Condonation of delay – One of considerations which High Court will keep in view is whether party seeking assistance of court was or was not reasonably diligent in pursuing remedy---If he is guilty of undue delay or laches in approaching court, his petition may be dismissed only on that ground without entering into merits of cause---If party acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning delay---There is no justification in condoning delay by imposing conditions---Each application for condonation of delay to be decided within framework laid down by Supreme Court---If courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause was made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature.
Result – Petition dismissed.
K.J. Thaker, J. (Oral) - This petition is of the year 2011 and it was at the stage of notice and has not been admitted, it is being decided finally.
2. On 10.8.2015, this court has passed the following order:
“S.O. to 12.8.2015 for dictation of order. As there is gross delay but Mr. Patel learned advocate wants the authority to consider case for premium on which Mr. Raval ld. AGP will take instruction, otherwise, the petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.”
3. Though the roster has been changed, however, this petition is listed today before this Court for dictation of judgment.
4. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition:
B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by quashing and setting aside -
[i] the impugned order passed by the Chief Secretary [Appeals], Revenue Department, at Annexure - A to the petition,
[ii] the impugned order dated 2.7.2002 passed by the respondent no. 2 - Collector, Junagadh, at Annexure-B to the petition, and
[iii] the impugned order dated 10.4.2001 passed by the Deputy Collector, Veraval at Annexure-C to the petition.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased-
[i] to stay the execution, operation and implementation of - [i] the impugned order passed by the Chief Secretary [Appeals], Revenue Department, at Annexure-A to the petition, [ii] the impugned order dated 2.7.2002 passed by the respondent no. 2 - Collector, Junagadh, at Annexure-B to the petition, and
[iii] the impugned order dated 10.4.2001 passed by the Deputy Collector, Veraval, at Annexure-C to the petition.
[iv] to direct the respondents, their officers, employees, agents and servants, not to disturb the peaceful and legal possession of the petitioners qua the land in question, namely the land bearing survey no. 432 mouje Una, taluka Una, district Junagadh admeasuring Acre-2 - 28 gunthas.
(D) Your Lordship may be pleased to pass such other and further relief in favour of the petitioner, as deemed just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and considered the submissions.
6. Mr. Patel learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that assuming without admitting that the land was of new tenure, a post-facto permission could have been given by the authorities and can be given by the authorities below, because, the land has changed status as the land was first sold in 1981, and then in 1997, and it is not a case where the State Government authorities were not aware about these facts because the revenue entries were made in the revenue record whereby the names of the purchasers have been entered in the revenue record. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 while considering the appeal of the petitioners should have considered the relevant and material fact that the period of almost 17 years had passed when the proceedings were initiated for the first time by way of suo motu notice. It is submitted that it is a law well laid down that the suo motu powers are to be exercised within a reasonable time frame and the time frame is stipulated as few months, at the most one year. There is a gross unexplained delay based on which the proceedings have been delayed and solely on this ground of unreasonable delay, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.
7. The factual scenario as it emerges from the petition, shows that the main thrust of the petition is the dismissal of petitioners’ claim by order dated 2006 which confirmed the order dated 2.7.2002 and the order dated 10.4.2001. It is an admitted fact that the petition is filed in the year 2011. The petitioner has come to this court after a period of 7 years.
8. On merits also, the petitioner has challenged
