Point of law : Delay which has occurred at two (2) stages as noticed hereinabove, has not been explained and there is no cause muchless sufficient cause if shown.

ORDER :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. The order of learned Single Judge dated 24.04.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No. 18414 of 2011 has been challenged in Letters Patent Appeal No. 14952 of 2020. On account of there being delay of 2618 days, Civil Application No. 2068 of 2020 has been filed seeking condonation of the same. The said application has been resisted to by the contesting respondents by filing detailed statement of objections.

2. In order to examine as to whether the delay deserves to be condoned, incidentally we called upon the learned Assistant Government Pleader to address the arguments on main matter also, and having heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Tirthraj Pandya appearing for the appellants, Mr. Deven Parikh, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the respondent No. 3.1 and learned advocate Mr. Nishit Gandhi appearing for the respondents Nos. 4.1.2 to 4.1.4, we are of the considered view that even delay deserves to be condoned, on merits appeal deserves to be dismissed and by condoning the delay and admitting the appeal would only be an exercise in futility for the reasons indicated herein below.

3. The land bearing Survey No. 177/1 admeasuring Hectares 0-16-19 square metres of Mouje Manjalpur, Taluka & District Vadodara, which was the subject matter of proceedings before all the authorities including the learned Single Judge, was owned by one Shri Manjibhai Nathabhai and Bhaijibhai Nathabhai, who sold the same under a registered sale deed dated 30.06.1958 in favour of the predecessor-in-title of respondents Nos.1 to 3 pursuant to which, the revenue records came to be mutated and entries came to be confirmed. On premise that said land was a tenanted land since the revenue records for the period 1951-52 to 1955-56 was reflecting the name of the tenant, suo-moto proceedings came to be initiated which resulted in an order being passed on 25.07.1980 which was challenged by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 ultimately before the Tribunal resulting in accepting the said appeal and the order dated 25.07.1980 came to be set aside. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State preferred Special Civil Application No. 18414 of 2011 before the learned Single Judge who has dismissed the said application by confirming the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 16.06.2009 and has set aside the order dated 30.04.2005 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Vadodara in Tenancy/Appeal/Case No.37/2004 as well as order dated 25.07.1980 passed by the Mamlatdar & Agricultural Lands Tribunal under section 32(1)(b) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short ‘Act’) in Tenancy Case No.3050.

4. The prime contention of the learned AGP is :

Order dated 25.07.1980 ought not to have been set aside by the Tribunal that too after a lapse of 24 years, particularly when the revenue records clearly reflected the name of the tenant for the period 1951-52 to 1955- 56 and, as such, proceedings initiated under section 32(1)(b) of the Act by the Mamlatdar was correct and justified. Hence, he has assailed the order passed by the Tribunal which has set aside the order of the Deputy Collector. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent is correct and justified in contending that statutory provision under section 32 itself is not attracted or inapplicable for the reason that said provision would be attracted in respect of a land which is a tenanted land and only on section 32 being attracted, suo-moto proceedings could have been initiated. The expression and language employed in section 32 is clear, explicit and unambiguous. It reads thus : -

“32 (1) (a) - xxxxxx ”

(1) (b) such tenant is not a permanent tenant but cultivates the land leased personally; and

(i) the landlord has not given notice of termination of his tenancy under section 31; or

(ii) notice has been given under section 31, but the landlord has not applied to the Mamlatdar on or before the 31st day of March, 1957 u