ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner has challenged the order passed by Mamlatdar & ALT dated 23rd March, 1982 and notice dated 31st May, 1993 in following factual background.
2. The petitioner holds agricultural land in village: Khambhala. The petitioner has 1/3 share out of 140 Acres and 27 Gunthas of bid lands of the said village of survey No. 176. Likewise, out of bid lands of ad-measuring 58 Acres and 23 Gunthas of Survey No. 315 also the petitioner claims a share therein. The petitioner also holds other lands which are not bid lands. In terms of provisions contained in Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as ‘the said Act’), the petitioner was required to make a declaration of his land holding. The Mamlatdar & ALT by his impugned order dated 23 March, 1982 declared 70 Acres and 37 Gunthas of the petitioner's land as surplus.
3. The petitioner did not challenge the said order of the Mamlatdar & ALT before the Deputy Collector though under the said Act, statutory appeal was available. For nearly 9 years, thereafter, no further development took place. On 31.5.1993, Mamlatdar, Babra, issued notice to the petitioner stating that under the said Act, certain lands were declared surplus and even the possession of the excess land was taken over. This was also entered in the revenue records. It was decided to measure the land and hold a programme to ascertain the actual position at the site, the petitioner should, therefore, remain present on 4.6.1993
4. It was thereupon the petitioner filed this petition and challenged the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT declaring the petitioner's certain lands as excess lands and also notice dated 31.5.1993
5. In the petition as well as before me, the petitioner raised two contentions. First was that, bid lands of Girasdars and Barkhalidas of Saurashtra area were not covered under the said Act. The same was, therefore, not be included in computing the agricultural lands in the hands of the petitioner. Mamlatdar and ALT therefore erred in declaring 76 Acres and 37 Gunths of petitioner's lands as surplus.
6. The second contention of the petitioner was that though the family comprises of more than 5 members, the benefit of Section 6(3B) of the Act was not made available. In this context, counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the family of the petitioner comprises of himself his wife, 2 minor sons and 2 minor daughters. He submitted that the authority also ignored the presence of mother as member of the family on the ground that she was residing with the brother of the petitioner.
7. In so far as question of bid lands is concerned, the issue is now squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagbhai Najbhai Khackar v. State Of Gujarat reported in (2010) 10 SCC 594 and decision in case of State of Gujarat v. Manoharsinhji Pradyumansinhji Jadeja reported in JT 2012 (12) SC 156.
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 23 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.
11. For all such reasons, petition is dismissed. Rule discharge. Interim relief is vacated.