Kanubhai Popatbhai Khachar (S) v. State Of Gujarat & 1 (S)

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6476 of 1993, whereby, the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition.

2. We have heard Mr. Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner.

3. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant-petitioner is that if in the order of the Mamlatdar it was stated that the original petitioner has two minor sons and two minor daughters, all were required to be considered for giving unit. But, such aspect was not considered by the Mamlatdar and therefore, even if the aspects of bid land is kept aside, the order of the Mamlatdar on the said aspects of provisions of Section 6(3)(B) was required to be considered. But, the Learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the present aspect and this Court may consider the present appeal.

4. It may be recorded that the Learned Single Judge has recorded the reasons for not entertaining the contention at para No. 8 to 10 as under:

“8. In so far as application of 6(3B) is concerned, there may be some arguable point in favour of the petitioner. However, I am not inclined to entertain this petition against the order of Mamlatdar & ALT dated 23rd March, 1982, for following reasons.

9. Though statutory appeal was available first before the Deputy Collector and thereafter, before the Gujarat Land Revenue Tribunal, the petitioner did not prefer any such appeals. In fact, for over 9 years, the petitioner took no steps to challenge the said order. Only on the ground of gross delay and laches, this petition cannot be entertained. The sole ground for explaining such delay is that the question of bid lands was before the Government and the petitioner therefore did not take any steps to challenge the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT. In my opinion, the explanation is completely lame. The Mamlatdar and ALT had passed a quasi judicial order. The same had to be challenged in terms of provisions contained in the said Act. Statutory appeal can be filed within period of limitation prescribed of-course subject to condonation of delay on sufficient cause being shown. In any case, the petitioner could not have ignored the order of Mamlatdar & ALT on the ground that the issue was being considered by the Government. The order passed by the Mamlatdar would bind the petitioner.

10. Though sought to be suggested by the counsel for the petitioner, notice dated 31.5.1993, was not for taking over possession of the excess land. In-fact, notice itself suggests that, such possession was already taken over. Appropriate entries had been made in the revenue records. It was only for verifying the situation on the spot and carry out measurement, he was asked to remain present under such notice. Issuance of such notice, therefore, would not give fresh lease of life to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, way back in the year 1982.

5. When it was an admitted position that after order was passed by the Mamlatdar, for 9 years, the petitioner did not take any action and further when the possession of the land was already taken over, we do not find that the Learned Single Judge committed any error in exercising of the discretion in not entertaining the petition on the said ground.

6. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference, as the appeal is merit-less and hence, the same is dismissed.

ORAL ORDER in CIVIL APPLICATION

In view of the order passed in the main Letters Patent Appeal No. 870 of 2014, present Civil Application would not survive and hence, disposed of.