ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sandip Patel on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.J.K.Shah on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT) more particularly whereby the application preferred by the present petitioner challenging the refusal to re-grant the land to the present petitioner has been rejected.

3. At the outset, it requires to be mentioned that the petition as well as the revision application before the learned GRT were absolutely misconceived and whereas except for the fact that the applicant being a widow lady from the scheduled tribe, this Court would have imposed heavy cost on the petitioner for such a misconceived petition.

3.1. It appears that the issue in question is with regard to land bearing survey nos.2477, 2362 and 2485 situated at Village: Vankal, Taluka: Chikhli, District: Navsari. It would appear that the said lands had been granted to one Gopalbhai Devabhai Solanki under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act subject to restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act as a new tenure land.

3.2. It appears that the said lands had been mortgaged by the said one Mr.Solanki i.e. the father-in-law of the present petitioner to one Premabhai Ukkadbhai and since the said Mr.Solanki wanted to redeem the land and whereas since the mortgagee was not ready to accept the redemption amount, he had approached the revenue authorities for getting back his possession. It appears that vide an order dated 12.04.1988, the Mamlatdar in a proceedings initiated under Section 84(C) had directed the mortgagee to return the amount to the mortgagor.

3.3. It appears that the said order had been set aside by the Deputy Collector, Valsad vide order dated 12.10.1990 in a suo motu revision application and it remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar and ALT, Chikhali. It appears that the Mamlatdar had, in the remand case vide order dated 16.07.1991, directed vesting of land with the State Government more particularly since the restrictions under Section 43 had been breached. It appears that again the said order had been taken up in suo motu revision by the Deputy Collector who had again vide order dated 06.07.1993 set aside the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT and had remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. It would appear that the Mamlatdar and ALT vide order dated 30.10.2004 had again directed the vesting of the land in the State Government and whereas the said order was sent for revision to the Deputy Collector who had confirmed the same vide order dated 07.08.2006.

3.4. The petitioner had preferred revision application before the learned GRT and whereas it was mentioned in the revision application that the petitioner did not have any grievance against the order passed by the revenue authorities and whereas in the said context it was prayed that land situated at block no.2477 may be re-granted to the petitioner as per her request vide application dated 22.03.2021. The petitioner had also preferred an application for condonation of delay in the main revision application. The learned GRT vide order dated 19.01.2023 had noted that the revision application was preferred after 21 years of delay and whereas as such, the petitioner was not questioning the orders passed by the revenue authorities and was seeking only a direction. Having noted as above, the learned GRT had rejected the revision application on the ground of unexplained delay.

3.5. As against the same, the present petition has been filed praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the learned GRT in the application for condonation of delay and to direct the Revenue Tribunal to hear and decide the revision application on merits.

4. The prayer before the learned GRT as well as before this Court, as noted hereinabove, would reflect the absolute misconceived nature of the present petition as