Inordinate delay in filing a writ petition can bar the consideration of merits, especially when prior proceedings have reached finality.

ORDER :

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 25939 of 2022, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed being hopelessly time barred and that no case was made out to entertain the writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The learned single Judge has rejected all the claims of the writ petitioners being poor and illiterate, not aware of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which have led to passing of the order, noticing that the petitioners have been indolent and cannot be permitted to invoke the equitable extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court after waking up from slumber, without offering plausible explanation.

3. There is no dispute about the fact that in the proceedings initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued on 30.06.1990. The challenge in the writ petition was to the proceedings undertaken under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the first order under Section 8(4) of the Act being dated 06.09.1986 and the last notice under Section 10(5) of the Act dated 30.06.1990. Further challenge was to the communication dated 09.07.1999 issued by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad whereby the Appeal came to be returned in light of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. A declaration has been sought by the petitioners to the effect that the possession of the land-in- question has not taken in a manner known to law.

4. The land-in-question belonged to the predecessor of the petitioner namely Dharmabhai Madhabhai, who had filled Form No. 1 on 30.08.1976 declaring the land-in-question and Survey No. 89/1 of Village Tragad as agricultural lands. Notification dated 12.06.1987 under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came to be issued during the life time of the predecessor of the petitioners namely Dharmabhai Madhabhai. After his death on 12.04.1988, with the heirship entry made in the revenue records vide Entry No. 825, the name of the petitioners were mutated. The notice under sub-section (5) of Section 10 came to be issued on 30.06.1990 directing the petitioners to surrender the land within 30 days. On 26.09.1990, the Panchnama was drawn. The Revision Application filed by the legal heirs under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came to be rejected by the State Government. Thereafter, an order was passed under Section 11 awarding compensation for the surplus land, which as per the case of the petitioners, noted by the learned single Judge, was not accepted by them. The Appeal was filed on 09.07.1999, which was returned by the Appellate Authority in view of the Repeal Act namely the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

5. After almost more than three decades, the petitioners have filed the writ petition with the reliefs as noted hereinabove.

6. It was sought to be argued by the learned senior advocate Mr. Yatin Oza assisted by Mr. Masoom Shah appearing for the appellants that the learned single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay instead of going into the merits of the claims of the petitioners, which were agitated before the writ court. The submission is that the land-in-question being an agricultural land, was illegally declared as surplus and the decision of the competent authority that since the land-in-question lying in the residential area, it cannot be exempted under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is erroneous. It was argued that it was not permissible for the competent authority to consider the land-in-question as ‘urban land’ so as to declare it as ‘surplus’ under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

7. In thi