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.

JUDGMENT :

NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.2.2015 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Review Application No. TEN/CA/1/14 as well as the order dated 5.12.2013 passed by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/199/2005. By order dated 5.12.2013, the Tribunal allowed revision application of the respondent No. 4 and quashed and set aside order dated 20.11.2004 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) in Appeal No. 11/12/03 as well as order dated 7.10.1977 passed by the Additional Mamlatdar & Krishi Panch, Mehsana in Ganot/32PP (Nagalpur) 164/77. By order dated 3.2.2015, review application preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected.

2. The petition is pending since the year 2015 for admission and, therefore, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself.

3. Rule. Mr. Jay Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Jeet J. Bhatt, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 4.1.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that father of the petitioners was irrigating a land bearing Survey No. 824/2 admeasuring Acres 0.30 Guntha situated in the sim of village Nagalpur, Tal. & Dist. Mehsana in the capacity of a tenant. In the proceedings being Tenancy Case No. 32PP-Nagalpur-164-77, the Mamlatdar & Krishi Panch vide order dated 7.10.1977 held the petitioner to be tenant of the land in question on account of admission of respondent No. 4-Bismillabibi D/o Musamiya Jivanmiya wherein she has categorically admitted the possession over the land in question by the present petitioners and it was specifically admitted that the land revenue is being paid by the present petitioners. Even in the Khed Hakk till 1976-77, the possession of the land is recorded in the name of the present petitioners.

4.1 On the basis of aforesaid facts, vide order dated 7.10.1977, determined the purchase price of the land in question at Rs.316.25. The land was sold to the present petitioners with restrictions of Section 43. The amount was directed to be paid in two equal installments.

4.2 The aforesaid order dated 7.10.1977 was never challenged by the respondent No. 4.1 till 2003. However, according to learned advocate Mr. Jeet Bhatt appearing for respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 4 challenged the order dated 7.10.1977 before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) which was not the right forum according to learned advocate Mr. Jeet Bhatt. However, the learned SSRD vide order dated 31.3.2004 rejected the said revision application filed by the respondent No. 4.1.

4.3 After unsuccessful attempt to challenge the order passed in the year 1977, the respondent No. 4.1 once again made an attempt to challenge the said order before the Deputy Collector, Mehsana by filing Appeal No. 11-12/2003 under Section 74 of the TENANCY ACT . However, the said appeal came to be rejected by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Mehsana vide order dated 20.11.2004 taking note of the fact that there is long unexplained delay in challenging the order dated 7.10.1977 and rejected the appeal of the respondent No. 4.

4.4 Being further aggrieved, the respondent No. 4 preferred Revision Application No. TEN/BA/199/2005 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. However, surprisingly, the Tribunal completely ignoring the aspect of delay, just by recording that as the SSRD has wrongly considered the aspect of delay without considering the merits of the matter, entertained the revision application and quashed the order dated 20.11.2004 passed by the Depu