ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.04.2023, passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (‘GRT’ in brief), Ahmedabad, in Revision Application B/A/ 18/2020 (5018).

2. In the aforesaid Revision, the petitioner preferred an application for condonation of delay, which came to be rejected, as the date, on which the application for condonation of delay was taken-up for hearing, the petitioner was not present. It is stated in the impugned order that the petitioner lastly remained present on

20.04.2021 and thereafter, he continuously remained absent.

3. Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. Dwivedi, appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP, Mr. Kanara, for Respondent No.3.

4. Learned Advocate, Mr. Dwivedi, submitted that the order, which was challenged before the GRT, by filing Revision Application B/A/ 18/2020 (5018), was never received by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner had to file an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and on receiving the same, he immediately preferred the application for condonation of delay and approached the Resident Addl. Collector, Banaskantha at Palanpur, challenging the order passed in the year 1981 and to be precise, on 25.03.1981. The Resident Addl. Collector, Banaskantha at Palanpur, vide order dated 04.08.2019, returned the appeal on the ground that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to challenged the order in question before the GRT. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred Revision Application B/ A/18/2020 (5018) before the GRT, where, the petitioner remained absent, after remaining lastly present on 20.04.2021.

5. On the date, on which the matter was taken-up for hearing, the petitioner did not remain present and hence, the same came to be dismissed and though, according to the submission of learned Advocate, Mr. Dwivedi, written-submissions were filed before the GRT, which were not considered. Though, this submission is not a part of this petition, on a specific query made by this Court, as to whether the written-submissions, which were annexed along with the aforesaid application before the GRT, are produced before this Court, learned Advocate, Mr. Dwivedi, was fair enough to submit that the same are not annexed with this matter.

6. Considering the aforesaid aspect, in view of the fact that there being no material to justify the delay from the year 1981 to 2020, i.e. the year in which the order dated 25.03.1981 by the Deputy Collector was challenged before the GRT, and neither there is any evidence to support the grounds stated by the petitioner nor is there any written-submissions, which according to the learned Advocate for the petitioner were produced before the GRT, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the GRT, refusing to condone the delay of about 39 years, i.e. from 1981 to 2020. Accordingly, this petition requires to be dismissed and the same is DISMISSED.

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)

UMESH/-