Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 7321
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10624 of 2024 ==========================================================
HEIRS OF NARANBHAI AMARBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.1.1,1.1.2,1.2,1.3,1.3.1,1.4,1.4.1,1.4.2,1.4.3 for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5,6 ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR NIKUNJ KANARA, AGP for the Respondent-State MR MB GOHIL(2702) for the Respondent(s) No. 4 ==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 01/08/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Mamta R. Vyas for the petitioners, learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. M.B. Gohil for the respondent No.4 on caveat.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioners challenge an order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/130/2017, whereby an order passed by the Collector in a challenge by the respondent No.4, has been set aside.
3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Ms. Vyas for the petitioners and learned Advocate Mr. Gohil for the respondent No.4, it would prima facie appear to this Court that the respondent No.4 herein vide an application being Tenancy Dispute Application No. 43 of 2016, had sought to challenge an order dated 24.11.1976 under Section
32(G) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, passed by the Mamlatdar, Kadi. It would appear that the Deputy Collector vide order dated 11.04.2017, in addition to rejecting the contention of the respondent No.4 herein-applicant therein on merits, had also noted that the application suffers from delay of 40 years which had not been explained. It would appear that no separate application for condoning delay had been preferred by the respondent No.4 herein before the Deputy Collector. It would appear that in challenge, the GRT, has based upon general observations as regards the land belonging to a temple and that the deity of the temple would not come to carry out agricultural activity by itself etc. has brushed aside the delay of 40 years. To this Court, prima facie, the observations by the learned GRT, as regards the aspect of condonation of delay, does not appear to be proper. To this Court, it would prima facie appear that when an order passed in the year 1976 was questioned, the party challenging the order should first establish that he had sufficient cause for explaining the delay and only after the delay was condoned could the authorities have gone into the merits of the issue. In the instant case, learned Advocate Mr. Gohil could not point that any application for condoning delay had been preferred before the Deputy Collector.
4. Furthermore, before the learned GRT while it is submitted that an application for condoning delay had been preferred by the respondent No.4 herein, but the same had not been decided and in the main matter, the learned GRT had condoned the delay, while addressing the issue on merits.
5. Considering such a position, the following orders are passed : (i) Issue Rule returnable on 06.03.2025. Learned AGP Mr.
Kanara waives service of rule for respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Gohil waives service of rule for respondent No.4.
(ii) By way of interim relief, the impugned order passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, dated 3.06.2024 in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/130/2017, is hereby stayed.
(iii) Parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the property in question.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
