Back
NIRZAR S. DESAI
Legal Heirs of Basiruddin Punnumiya – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
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
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.
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision affirming tenant rights based on longstanding possession and admissions, indicating the strength of historical claims in tenancy disputes under the Tenancy Ac....
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the validity of the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in 1961 and its subsequent review, along with the statutory limita....
The court established that rights to land can be extinguished by non-payment of purchase price, and unchallenged orders prevent revival of claims.
A judgment obtained by fraud is a nullity and can be challenged at any time. Fraud and justice cannot coexist, and those approaching the court must do so with clean hands.
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
