ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.07.2020 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (‘GRT’, for short), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.TEN / BA / 155 of 2018 whereby the delay of 34 to 35 years was condoned.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mrugen Purohit with learned advocate Mr.Kishal Daiha for learned advocate Mr.Shital Patel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Nikunj Kanara for the respondent – State.

3.1 Mr.Mitesh Kanejiya, Deputy Mamlatdar, Ganot Branch, Collector Office, Nadiad is also present in the Court and upon instructions from Mr.Kanejiya received by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kanara the matter is proceeded though vide order dated 18.02.2022 learned Assistant Government Pleader was directed to file reply.

3.2 Today since the officer himself is present in the Court and as assisted learned Assistant Government Pleader, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

4. On 18.02.2022, this Court passed the following order:

“1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Shital Patel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Nikunj Kanara for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.

2.1 Learned advocate Mr.Patel drew attention of this Court that what is under challenge is the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 27.07.2020 whereby learned Government Revenue Tribunal has condoned the delay of 35 years and has admitted the matter. Learned advocate Mr.Patel challenged the order mainly on the grounds that (i) Revision Application under Section 76 of the Act is not maintainable at the behest of Deputy Mamlatdar for the reason that there is no formal order passed under Section 76A of the Act by the Deputy Collector taking the order of the Mamlatdar & ALT in suo motu Revision, (ii) the Tribunal has not decided the issue about the maintainability of the Revision Application since the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT is directly challenged by the Deputy Mamlatdar by way of Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, (iii) there is no justification for condonation of delay of 35 years coming forward from the impugned order and (iv) the Deputy Mamlatdar being the authority inferior to Mamlatdar ALT as well as Deputy Collector Land Reforms he has no locus to challenge the order passed by the higher authority as per the hierarchy of the Revenue Authorities.

2.2 Learned advocate Mr.Patel also drew attention of the fact that a notice under Section 76A of the Act was given by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeals), Kheda at Nadiad by way of Tenancy Revision Case No.01 of 2018 whereby a notice 30.05.2018 was given. However, vide order dated 30.06.2018 the aforesaid proceedings were dropped and once if the 76A proceedings are dropped at least Deputy Mamlatdar could not have challenged the aforesaid order by way of Revision Application and therefore also Revision Application is not maintainable.

3. In view of the above submission, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kanara sought time to place on record necessary record along with a detailed reply.

4. At the request of learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kanara stand over to 10.03.2022. The petitioner is also permitted to file additional affidavit as requested by learned advocate Mr.Patel, which will be filed within period of seven days.”

And thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time.

5.1 Today, learned advocate Mr.Purohit submitted that keeping all the contentions of the petitioner open if the matter is remanded back by quashing and setting aside the impugned order whereby the delay of 34-35 years is condoned, the grievance of the petitioner would redressed, at this stage.

5.2 Learned advocate Mr.Purohit submitted that while condoning the delay of 35 years, the ‘GRT’ has not assigned any reason for condoning the delay and has merely stated the facts in the impugned order and, therefore, the ‘GRT’ may be directed to pass a reasoned order stating as to why dela