Point of law: A review application cannot be preferred as an appeal in disguise. The present is a case wherein the applicants seek to do just that.

ORDER :

VINEET KOTHARI, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the Order dated 09.04.2012 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed Special Civil Application No. 17004 of 2011 [Kantilal Jivabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Others].

2. A Review Application was filed by the petitioners against the said Order dated 09.04.2012, namely, Misc. Civil Application No. 2468 of 2012 in Special Civil Application No. 17004 of 2011 which Review Application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 09.10.2015. The relevant portion of both the impugned Orders are quoted below for ready reference: Order Dated 09.04.2012 passed by Learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 17004 of 2011

“7.I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition, contents of the impugned order and other documents on record.

8. The first glaring aspect that draws the attention of this Court is the delay in filing the petition. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 06121995 passed by the District Collector and order dated 19012000 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, and was under the impression that the Revision Application is still pending. It is averred in the petition that when nothing was heard about the revision time, application the for petitioner a made considerable inquiries and period of ultimately came to know regarding the passing of the order in the Revision Application. A certified copy of the said order was, thereafter, applied for, and the petition was filed.

9. This explanation of the petitioner is, unfortunately, belied from the record itself. During the pendency of the Revision Application before the Principal Secretary (Appeals), not only was the learned advocate for the petitioner heard, but he was also granted adjournments from time to time. Moreover, his submissions were also recorded. The impugned order has, therefore, been passed after hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner. The more important aspect is, that there is an endorsement on the impugned order that copies have been sent to the concerned parties. In view of this, it cannot be assumed, as a matter of course, that the petitioner did not have knowledge of the passing of the said order. The application dated 14.07.2010 addressed by the petitioner to the Principal Secretary (Appeals), appears to be an afterthought, that has occurred in the year 2010, as a prelude to the filing of this petition, in the year 2011. The explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay of 12 years is, therefore, not convincing.

10. Apart from the aspect of delay, the facts of the case reveal that the land vested in the State Government pursuant to order dated 18031988, passed by the Recovery Officer, Gujarat State Cooperative Land Development Bank.

11. It is not disputed that the petitioner had taken a loan from the said Bank, which he could not repay. The auction of the land was held but as there were no bidders who bid higher than the upset price, the land was auctioned in favour of the State Government. This order has not been challenged by the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, Entry No.1442 was mutated on 23061988, in the revenue record, in favour of the State Government. This Entry has also not been challenged by the petitioner at any point of time. Both the order dated 18/03/1998 and Entry No.1442 have now attained finality.

12.The main grievance of the petitioner, as voiced in the petition as well as reiterated by the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, is that the imgugned order of the Collector dated 06121995, is a fourline order, containing no reasons, whatsoever. A grievance has also been ventilated that the said order has been passed without hearing the petitioner, and that the ground for passing of the order, namely, that the petitioner is not cultivating the land in question, is not correct. According to the petitioner, he is in continuous possession