Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sumanbhai Thagabhai Chaudhary & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 16817 of 2015 With R/Special Civil Application No. 16818 of 2015
Decided on : 03-04-2024
Delay in Filing Petition - Land Revenue Dispute - Gujarat Tenancy Act - Section 84(C), Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Fact of the Case:
The State challenged a common order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal after a delay of seven years, citing administrative process as the reason for the delay. The respondents, who were adivasi and belonging to the Schedule Tribe community, were involved in a land revenue dispute dating back to 1953. The State sought condonation of delay based on the principle of limitation as per the Limitation Act, 1963.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the explanation for the delay provided by the State was insufficient and lacked cogent evidence. The Court dismissed the petition on the ground of delay, stating that the insufficient explanation could not be accepted and that entertaining the petition based on such an explanation would encourage litigants to approach the Court belatedly.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in filing the petition and whether the explanation provided by the State was sufficient to warrant condonation of the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and emphasized that the explanation for delay must be supported by cogent evidence. It held that insufficient explanations for delay cannot be accepted and that entertaining petitions based on such explanations would encourage belated litigation.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions on the ground of delay, discharged the notice, and vacated the interim relief granted earlier. No order as to costs was issued.
ORDER :
1. By way of both these petitions, the petitioner State has challenged common order dated 20.2.2008 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN/BS/56/2001 and Revision Application No.TEN/BS/58/2001. Though there were two different proceedings, which were decided by a common order therefore, these two separate petitions are preferred to challenge the common order in respect of two different proceedings.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order after a period of seven years.
3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Pathak appearing for the petitioner - State and learned senior advocate Mr. Anshin H. Desai with learned advocate Ms. Venu H. Nanavaty appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are stated as under :-
4.1 The present respondents happens to be grandson of one Goja Nanka who had three sons and one daughter namely (i) Bilada Goja (ii) Thagare Goja and (iii) Bhera Goja and (iv) Dudhiben. Thagare Goja had two sons namely Khalpa Thagare and Suman Thagare. The respondents are adivasi and belonging to Schedule Tribe community and are tilling agricultural pieces of land as an agriculturist. In the year 1953, as it is submitted by learned senior advocate Mr. Anshin Desai that the father of the respondent namely Thagare Goja was holding a land bearing Survey No.148, Block No. 185 at Patal Devigam. In the said land name of Khalpa Thagare, the brother of the respondent was also entered from 1955 to 1958 and he continued in the revenue record all throughout. Similarly, the brothers of Thagare Goja i.e. two uncles of the respondent No.1 namely (i) Bilada Goja and (ii) Bhera Goja. Bilada Goja held the land bearing Block No.102/A and land bearing 102/B whereas Bhera Goja held the land bearing Block No.60 bearing Survey No.32.
4.2 On 5.6.1972, the respondent No.1 Suman Thagare Chaudhari purchased the land bearing Survey No.62, Block No.85 at Nandola Gaam, Taluka : Magrol, District : Surat along with Muktanandji Guru Shri Sukhanandji by way of a registered sale deed from Narayanrao Gopalrao Surve and Subhashchandra Gopalrao Surve, for which entry No.482 was mutated in the revenue record. Similarly, another piece of land was purchased by the respondent No.1 in the year 1983 for which entry No.683 was mutated. For the aforesaid transaction which had taken place on 16.7.1982 in respect of land bearing survey No.65+66/1 of Block No.92 after a period of twenty eight years.
4.3 On 22.9.2000, suo-motu revision proceedings were initiated by exercising suo- motu powers in respect of entry No.482 and entry No. 683, on the basis of proposal made by the Mamlatdar, Magrol that the respondents herein are not agriculturist and notice was issued to the respondents on 22.9.2000 under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act. The said show cause notice was replied by the respondents and ultimately vide order dated 20.11.2000, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Choryasi, Surat passed an order against the present respondent. Against which the respondents preferred a Tenancy Appeal No. 19 of 2000 and Tenancy Appeal No.20 of 2000 before the Deputy Collector along with written submissions. On 13.9.2001, the Deputy Collector, Olpad Prant, Surat dismissed both the appeals preferred by the respondents. In the meantime, the Collector, Surat vide order dated 31.7.2001 and 4.9.2000 in suo-motu RTS proceedings No.148 of 2000 and 149 of 2000 cancelled mutation entry No.482 and 683.
4.4 Against the order passed by the Deputy Collector, dated 13.9.2001, the respondent herein preferred a revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal whereby the respondent had challenged the order dated 20.11.2000 and 13.9.2001 by way of two revision applications No.TEN/BS/56/2001 and TEN/BS/58/2001. Parallelly, the respondents also preferred revision application No. MVV/HKP/ST/37/2000 challenging the order dated 4.9.2000 and 31.7.2001 passed by learned Collector
The main legal point established in the judgment is that explanations for delay in filing petitions must be supported by cogent evidence, and insufficient explanations cannot warrant condonation of d....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a delay of 43 years in challenging a revenue order must be sufficiently explained, and the failure to challenge an order before the appropriat....
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.
A Tribunal must consider delay and established equity before ruling on tenancy rights; long possession and undisputed admissions can override substantial delays, ensuring justice is served.
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
