IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that unexplained delay in challenging an order and the validity of a land transaction under the Tenancy Act can lead to the rejection of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

1.By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/103 of 2008 whereby the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal confirmed the order dated 29.02.2008 of the Deputy Collector who confirmed the order dated 21.04.1986 passed in Ganot Case No. 631 of 1985. Vide order dated 21.04.1986, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar decided the Tenancy Case No. 631 of 1985 against the present petitioner in respect of an application under section 32 P and held that the land in question was sold in contravention of provision of section 63 of the Tenancy Act and therefore, the sale was declared to be invalid and was directed to be vested into Government, if the original position is not restored within a period of 90 days and upon expiry of period of 90 days, the Government was directed to take possession of the land and initiate the proceedings under section 84 (C) (4) of the Tenancy Act. The aforesaid order was challenged after a period of 20 years by preferring an appeal against the order dated 21.04.1986 being Tenancy Appeal No. 35 of 2006 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gandhinagar and on the ground of 20 years unexplained delay, the aforesaid appeal was rejected vide order dated 29.02.2008. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 29.02.2008 by preferring Revision Application No. TEN/BA/103/2008 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and even the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal also by way of impugned order dated 29.03.2011 rejected the revision application and that is how the petitioner has preferred this petition against the concurrent findings.

2.Heard learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondent – State.

3. In this petition, notice was issued on 31.01.2012 and thereafter, on 16.09.2013 rule was issued and status quo qua the subject land was directed to be maintained by the parties.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a strong prima facie case as the petitioner was an agriculturist and the Mamlatdar and all the revenue authorities have not appreciated the aforesaid fact and have proceeded on the footing that an adoption deed was executed in the year 1985, when the petitioner’s age was 45 years. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas submitted that even if the adoption deed is discarded then also, the petitioner’s name was there in the revenue record and therefore, transaction of the land purchased by the petitioner could not have been said to be in breach of provision of section 63 of the Tenancy Act and therefore, the petitioner has a very good case on merits.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas submitted that the petitioner is enjoying the possession of the land in question even till today as after the order dated 21.04.1986 was passed and the petitioner’s transaction of the subject land was held to be invalid, the petitioner continued to cultivate the land and thereafter, as this Court while issuing rule on 16.09.2013 directed the parties to maintain status quo to the subject land, the petitioner is having possession of the land in question even today.

4.2.Learned advocate Mr. Vyas submitted that all the authorities have committed an error by not appreciating the aforesaid merits of the matter and have proceeded on the ground of delay that the petitioner for the first time challenged the order dated 21.04.1986 by way of Tenancy Appeal No. 35 of 2006 i.e. after a period of 20 years before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gandhinagar and as the petitioner being an illiterate person was unaware about the outcome of 32 P proceedings, such delay had occurred but the authorities have proceeded on the ground of delay and rejected the petitioner’s appeal as well as revision application and therefore, this Court’s intervention is required as the petitioner has a strong prima facie case.

4.3.Learned advocate Mr. Vyas submitted tha