Point of law: Protection of possession - specific instances given in writing in the memo of appeal to point out that in few cases, enormous delay is condoned by the very authority, but the same has not been dealt with at all in either way and as such it appears that the contentions which have been raised have not been considered by the authority.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking the following reliefs :“

8(A) To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.06.2019 passed by the learned SSRD, respondent no. 1 herein in Revision Application No. 16 of 2019 as well as the order dated 20.10.2018 passed by the learned District Collector, Amreli, in Appeal Case No. 8 of 2017 and the order dated 19.09.1994 passed by the Deputy Collector, Muhva in Sharatbhang Case No. 11/199394.

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the order dated 14.06.2019 passed by the learned SSRD, respondent no. 1 herein in Revision Application No. 16 of 2019 as well as the order dated 20.10.2018 passed by the learned District Collector, Amreli, in Appeal Case No. 8 of 2017 and the order dated 19.09.1994 passed by the Deputy Collector, Muhva in Sharatbhang Case No. 11/199394.

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to protect the possession of the petitioner over the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 424/1/P admeasuring Acres 80 Gunthas of Village Mota Zinzuda, Taluka Savarkundla, District Amreli and the respondent authorities may be restrained from disturbing the possession thereof.

(D) To pass such other and further order/s as may be just and necessary in the circumstances o the case.”

2. During the course of hearing Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has specifically drawn attention of this Court to the first order which has been passed by the Deputy Collector which is without serving a copy of the notice and without granting any opportunity of hearing. Apart from that, the order of the Collector is also suffering from vice of non application of mind and in view of the fact that two specific instances have been given in an appeal before the Collector that the Deputy Collector has condoned the delay in several cases though the delay was of long days whereas, in the case of the petitioner, the authority has not considered the same though specific orders have been pointed out in the memo of appeal reflecting on page 80 and thereby has contended that the Collector while passing the impugned order has not dealt with the said aspect at all and, therefore, there is non consideration of a specific contention by the authority. It has further been contended that before the revisional proceedings in the order after narration of the observations of the order of the Collector, no independent application of mind is reflecting and, therefore, in some and substance, the challenge is frustrated only on the issue of delay. It has been contended that the delay should not defeat the right of the litigation, precisely in view of the fact that there are certain guidelines issued vide Resolution dated 04.07.2008 as well as 04.10.2016 whereby the authorities were under an obligation to convert the land into old tenure after a lapse of certain period. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has further contended that in view of the fact that since the contentions which have been specifically raised before the Collector have not been dealt with at all, at least a fresh consideration deserves at the end of the Collector so that no injustice to be meted out to the petitioner. It is a settled law that while exercising the discretion, the authorities are under an obligation to deal with the contentions which are raised specifically, else, appropriate directions deserves by remanding matter for fresh consideration and as such, has requested the Court to remand the proceedings to the Collector so that fresh look can be given by the Collector in the larger interest.

3. To this submission, Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent authority on