C/SCA/9051/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9051 of 2015 ========================================================== RASIKLAL JAKHU LADHA SORATHIYA (HADIYA)....Petitioner(s) Versus
SPECIAL SECRETARY (APPEALS) & 5....Respondent(s) ========================================================== Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
Date : 23/07/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order order passed by passed on 31.07.2014/01.08.2014 by the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. HKP/Kutchh/ 13 of 2014 as well as the orders dated 20.10.1976 and 30.08.2008 passed by District Collector, Kutch, and thereby, remand the matter to Respondent No.1 for his consideration afresh on merits.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and perused the material on record and it appears that the reasons assigned by the petitioner for moving the concerned authority, which dismissed the petitioners claim on the ground of delay, does appear to be just and proper. It is an admitted position of fact that
Page 1 of 3
the land in question was allotted to the father of the petitioner, and therefore, the authorities ought not have taken such a hyper technical view of the matter.
3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in "Sunderlal Bhanabhai Bhagat & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.", 2012(3) GLR 2081 and, more particularly, Paragraph-8, thereof, which is reproduced at Page No.25 of the present petition, wherein, this Court has held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act would apply in the facts of the present case, which provides for the maximum period of three years for filing revision and, therefore, it cannot be said that the void order can be challenged at any point of time because delay confers no title and it's validity can be question at any stage. This petition requires to be partly ALLOWED. The DELAY
being not so gross requires to be and is ordered to be CONDONED. The order dated
31.07.2014/01.08.2014, impugned in this petition, is quashed and set aside, however, instead of deciding the petition on merits, it would be better to remand the same as the authorities have non-suited the petitioner only on the ground of delay and the matter is REMANDED to Respondent No.1 to decide the same in accordance with law
Page 2 of 3
and on merits, as expeditiously as possible, after the matter is restored on its original file. It is needless to say that this Court has gone into the merits of the matter, but, does not opine on merits. DISPOSED OFF, accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.J.THAKER, J)
UMESH
Page 3 of 3
Comments