The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain appeals or revisions against orders under Section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance, 1949, following the repeal of relevant provisions by the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. This Civil Reference has arisen on an order dated 04.07.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in a Special Civil Application No.1664 of 1997 noticing two contrary views in the judgments of the learned Single Judge in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mahmad Yusuf Ahmed Nagani (Special Civil Application No.6943 of 1998 decided on 18.01.1999) and in Vallubhai Kukabhai Boliya vs. State of Gujarat and others – 2005 (2) GLR 1225, with regard to the jurisdiction of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal to entertain and decide the revision application/appeal preferred against the order of the District Collector under Section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 (in short referred to as “the Ordinance, 1949”). The matter was initially referred to a Division Bench, which by oral order dated 25.02.2015 has observed that the reference be heard by a Larger Bench of three Judges. By another order dated 18.06.2021, three Judges’ Bench presided over by the then Chief Justice has directed that the reference be placed before a Division Bench after nomination by the Chief Justice. The reference has, thus, been placed before us. The question under reference is formulated as under :-

“Whether the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal constituted under the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957, has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal/revision against the order passed under Section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949, after enforcement of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951 with effect from 23.07.1951, whereby the whole of the Chapter-VIII of the Ordinance, 1949 which contained the provision for appeals and revision under Section 65 and 67; respectively, against the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Collector, had been repealed?

2. Shri Ravindra Shah and Ms.Trusha Patel, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would submit that the decision of the learned Single Judge in Vallubhai Kukabhai Boliya (supra) does not lay down the correct law. However, with respect to another judgment dated 18.01.1999 in Special Civil Application No.6943 of 1998, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge in the said decision did not address the issue with regard to the maintainability of the revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal against an order passed under Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949, inasmuch as, the said issue was not raised before the said Bench. Rather the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay in challenging the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal allowing the review application and setting aside the order passed by the Collector under Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949. There is, thus, no question of conflict.

3. Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.Vinay Vishen, learned Assistant Government Pleader has rendered assistance on behalf of the State.

4. In order to answer the reference, certain historical events are relevant to be taken note of as under :-

(i) By virtue of the Covenant dated 23.01.1948 executed by the erstwhile different rulers, the United States of Kathiawar came into existence which was renamed as United States of Saurashtra on 01.11.1948.

(ii) On 08.07.1949, the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949, came to be enacted.

(iii) Upon en