Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Vineet Kothari, B.N. Karia, JJ.
Natverlal Mahjibhai Patel Thro' Poa Vinodchandra Kantilal Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat & Anr. & others – Respondents
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1338 of 2016 In R/Special Civil Application No. 96 of 1996
Decided On : 22-06-2021
Repeal Act - Section 3 ,4 33 – Application - Seeking Condonation of Delay- Respondent No. 1 had neither made any application seeking condonation of delay nor had stated in memo of Appeal as to how he was prevented for 10 years from filing appeal within prescribed time limit - Tribunal without assigning any reason, condoned said delay in absolutely casual manner and entertained Appeal ignoring said statutory provisions contained in Section 33 of said Act - Affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.1 in present petition is also absolutely silent about cause of such a gross delay - Court well settled proposition of law that delay has to be satisfactorily explained, otherwise Appeal itself would not be maintainable in eye of law - Regard, a very pertinent observations have been made by Court in case of K.N. Patel versus - whether a particular land is vacant land or not –
Finding of the Court:
Court to which one of us was a party and without extracting from said judgments profusely reference to same for benefit of parties is considered enough and appropriate and same are already referred above was right, in our opinion, in setting aside said order of learned Tribunal, which could not be said to be a fair exercise of discretion to condone the delay and remand case back to Competent Authority. - Court not find any such case properly made out by Appellant - Appellant Landholder came before it with case that land in question was not residential but agricultural or that there was some evidence like site photos to establish that Appellant continued to be in possession of surplus land in question - Such averments taken at their face value without considering controverting evidence on state record which were documents of contemporary period establishing the procedure adopted by the Authorities of the Revenue Department as prescribed under the provisions of ULC –
Result: Appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
VINEET KOTHARI, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Special Civil Application No.96 of 1996 filed by the State of Gujarat against the Respondent Landholder.
2. The facts of the case in brief as noted by the learned Single Judge are quoted below for ready reference :
“2. A few facts germane for the purpose of deciding the present petition are that the respondent No.1 had filled in the form No.1 declaring his holdings under Section 6(1) of the said Act on 09.03.1984. The competent authority after considering the relevant material, passed the order dated 20.12.1984 holding inter alia that the respondent No.1 held the excess vacant lands as per the schedule annexed to the said order. The said order came to be challenged by the respondent No.1 after about ten years by filing the appeal being No. 54 of 1994 before the Tribunal, who without assigning any cogent reason entertained the grossly time barred Appeal and set aside the order dated 20.12.1984 passed by the competent authority, vide the impugned order dated 27.01.1995, and remanded the case to the competent authority. It appears that in the meanwhile, the petitioner – State had drawn the final statement on 31.12.1984 under Section 9 of the Act, issued the notification under Section 10 (1) on 25.04.1985, the notification under Section 10 (3) on 18.07.1985, and the notice under Section 10(5) on 07.01.1986, and had ultimately taken over the possession of the surplus lands in question on 25.03.1986.
3. It further appears that earlier the present petition was disposed of as per the order dated 11.08.1999, after the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repeal Act') had come into force. The respondent No.1 having filed the Misc. Civil Application being No. 1628 of 1999 seeking review of the said order, the said application was dismissed by the Court vide the order dated 10.09.1999. The respondent No. 1 thereafter preferred two Letters Patent Appeals being No. 1281 of 1999 and 1282 of 1999, against the said orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the petition as well as in the Misc. Civil Application. The said appeals came to be allowed by the Division Bench vide the order dated 27.01.2000, whereby the Division Bench directed the Single Bench to decide the petition afresh.
4. The petition was thereafter again heard and decided by the learned Single Judge as per the order dated 14-15.02.2007, whereby the petition came to be allowed and the order dated 27.01.1995 passed by the Tribunal came to be quashed and set aside. The aggrieved respondent No.1 again preferred Letters Patent Appeal being No. 1633 of 2007 before the Division Bench, who vide the order dated 22.01.2014 allowed the said Letters Patent Appeal, and again remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the same afresh on merits. Accordingly, the petition was heard by this Court afresh.”
3. The reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for allowing of the Writ Petition filed by the State against the order of learned Revenue Tribunal dated 27.01.1995 are also quoted below for ready reference:
“7. As regards the issue of delay, it is pertinent to note that as per Section 33 of the said Act, the person aggrieved by the order impugned by the competent authority, was required to file appeal within 30 days of the date on which the order was communicated to him, however, if the appellate authority was satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time, the appellate authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of 30 days. In the instant case, as transpiring from the impugned order itself, the respondent No. 1 had neither made any application seeking condonation of delay nor had stated in the memo of Appeal as to how he was prevented for 10 years from filing the appeal within the prescribed time limi
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
