Lalitaben v. State Of Gujarat

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners by way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have challenged the order dated 28.07.1989 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.B.S.490/87 whereby the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dismissed the Revision Application and confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector in respect of the land in question.

2. Facts in brief, as narrated in the memo of petition indicate that one Ramchandra Chauhan, deceased held agricultural lands wherein various survey numbers admeasuring 48 acres and 32 gunthas in aggregate in village-Pardi, Taluka-Kamrej, District-Surat on implementation of Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, on appointed day deceased Ramchandra Chauhan filed Form No. 2 in June, 1976, indicating that the land in question was falling within the local area in Class-C allowing the maximum area of 36 acres of Dry Crop Land (Jirayat Land) as prescribed in Schedule I and Schedule II of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960. The family of deceased Ramchandra Chauhan, at the time of filing Form No. 2, was consisting of self, his wife, minor son, major son and four married daughters and an unmarried daughter. Accordingly, the Form No. 2 was filed. The Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Kamrej vide order dated 26.03.1982 held that the said deceased Ramchandra Chauhan held in aggregate 80 acres and 03 gunthas of equivalent Dry Crop Land and therefore, 8 acres and 03 gunthas of equivalent Dry Crop Land being excess of 72 acres of Dry Crop Land entitled to be retained by said Ramchandra Chauhan was declared to be surplus and ordered to be vested in State. Pursuant to the procedure of right of selection for surrendering the agricultural land, under the right to elect, the land for surrendering the Survey Nos. 510 + 513 comprising of Block No. 336 admeasuring about 3 acres and 04 gunthas equivalent to 6 acres and 39 gunthas of Dry Crop Land was ordered to be actually vested in the State and the balance area of 1 acre and 04 gunthas was ordered to be waived by the State government. As the said portion of land, if taken from out of Survey No. 593 comprising in Bolck No. 429 would result into fragmentation hit by the law. The order dated 26.03.1982 was passed in Ceiling Case No. 67/1981. The said order was taken in Revision by Deputy Collector, Surat who quashed and set aside the said order and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry. Upon remand, the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Kamrej passed an order on 13.11.1986 holding that on account of number of family members being 10, the deceased in addition to 2 units being one unit for himself and one unit for his major son, was also entitled to get 4/5th unit and accordingly deceased was said to be entitled to hold land equivalent to Dry Crop Land up to ceiling area of 100 acres. Since the total area of land equivalent to Dry Crop Land held by deceased Ramchandra Chauhan is worked out at 80 acres and 03 gunthas i.e less than 100 acres of Dry Crop Land to which ceiling permitting no piece of land was declared as excess or surplus land liable to be vested in State. The order dated 13.11.1986 was carried in Revision being Revision Case No. 300/87 under the provisions of Section 37 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 and was quashed vide order dated 23.07.1987 and 3 acres and 04 gunthas of land equivalent to 6 acres and 39 gunthas of Dry Crop Land from Bolck No. 336 was declared to be liable to be vested in State. The said order was assailed by filing Revision Application being Revision Application No. TEN.B.S.490/87 before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal under Section 38 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960. The said Revision was dismissed, as could be seen from the order dated 28.07.1989, which is impugned in this petition.

3. The petitioners have attempted to show reasons belatedly challenging the same being mutation in the revenue record made in the year 2009. The averments made in the memo of the petition are, therefore, when the entry came to be made, the petitioners had to challenge the order which was passed and which has been made basis for mutation of the entry, as the petitioners' possession was not disturbed.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioners contended that delay in filing this petition is thus sufficiently explained and factum of possession could be said to be a valid ground for assailing the order, as though there was an order of Tribunal way back in the year 1989. The possession had not been disturbed and the entry, which is sought to be made for the first time in respect of excess land came to be certified only on 14.07.2009

5. Learned advocate for the petitioners invited this Court's attention to the observation made by the Tribunal while rejecting the Revision Application and submitted that the order passed by the competent authority holding that the petitioner's ancestors were entitled originally to hold 100 acres of land as prescribed and the original hold was less than 100 acres. There was no requirement of any further disturbance. The order dated 28.07.1989 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.B.S.490/87 being illegal and is required to be set aside.

6. This Court is unable to accept the submission of learned advocate for the petitioners for the following reasons.

7. The Court is not convinced with regard to the explanation tendered for belatedly challenging the order made on 28.07.1989 The fact remains to be noted that all the present petitioners were party in the Revision Application and the Revision Application was filed by them. When the Revision Application was filed by them, naturally it is expected of the petitioners or the applicants to pursue the same to its logical end. Mere statement with regard to their inquiring with the advocate concerned and advocate informing them that the Revision is pending, is itself not sufficient to inspire confidence of this Court warranting condonation of delay, which is sizable in the instant case. The petitioners have not produced any other material or appropriate averment to indicate that the petitioners were not aware about passing of the order dated 28.07.1989 The delay, therefore, in my view is so gross as to disentitle the petitioners to seek any relief from this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court is though not convinced with regard to the ground of delay and is also not convinced with regard to the lack of merits in the order impugned in this petition. The petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the Court needs to be mindful of the fact that the jurisdiction to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a very limited jurisdiction confined to the patent illegality and/or gross injustice. In the instant case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal while rejecting the Revision Application, in my view cannot be said to have brought about any of the result mentioned hereinabove. Hence, it does not call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition, thus being bereft of merits, deserves rejection and is accordingly rejected, however, there shall be not order as to costs.