SCA/630919/1997 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6309 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Petitioner(s) Versus GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS MAITHILI MEHTA, AGP. for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, MR BP MUNSHI for Respondent(s) : 2, MR DEVANG T SHAH for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date : 18/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been preferred by the State of Gujarat challenging order dated 25.3.1991 made by SCA/630919/1997 2/5 JUDGMENT Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in TEN.CBS/124/1987. Though the petition is styled as a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, but in fact, is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts are that in Ceiling Case No. 53 of 1976, Mamlatdar & ALT, Olpad-2 made an order under section 20(2) of The Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (the Act) declaring that the land was falling within class 'C' and respondent No.2 was entitled to hold two units and thus the land held was not in excess of the ceiling limit. 3. The said order was taken in suo-motu revision under section 37 of the Act by Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Surat and vide order dated 25.3.1987, the order of ALT was quashed and set aside restoring the matter to the file of ALT for taking a fresh decision in accordance with law. The Deputy Collector held that as on 1.4.1976 there was no major son in the family and hence, only one unit was available to the family and the ALT had wrongly held that two units SCA/630919/1997 3/5 JUDGMENT were available to the family. 4. Being aggrieved respondent No.2 herein, carried the matter before the Tribunal, who accepted the Appeal and quashed and set aside the order made by the Deputy Collector upholding the order made by Mamlatdar & ALT. It is this order which is under challenge. 5. The order of the Tribunal impugned in the petition is dated 25.3.1991, whereas the petition has been preferred in July, 1997. The Affidavit in support of the delay, which has occurred in filing of the petition, is dated 19.09.1997. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance on the said Affidavit in support of the submissions explaining the delay in preferring the petition. On going through the said Affidavit, it is apparent that the gross delay of more than six years remains unexplained. The vague explanation that the concerned Section Officer did not act between 1.8.1991 to November,1995 does not merit acceptance in absence of any details. However, what is more material is the SCA/630919/1997 4/5 JUDGMENT fact that as stated in paragraph No.4 of the Affidavit, the Legal Department of the State had advised not to file the writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal, despite which, it is stated that, the Revenue Department has preferred the petition. This insistence has to be considered in light of the averments made in paragraph No.6 of the Affidavit, wherein it is stated that the State Government is taking appropriate steps to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings against the erring officers. Thus, it is apparent that insistence by Revenue Department is only to ensure that the erring officers are in a position to explain that no loss has been caused to the State due to pendency of the proceedings. Hence, the petition deserves to be rejected only on the ground of being barred by laches in absence of any satisfactory explanation forthcoming for the gross delay of more than six years. 6. Even on merits the petitioner has failed to make out any case. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance on an assertion made by the petitioner in ground No.(G) of the petition that SCA/630919/1997 5/5 JUDGMENT the mother had transferred the entire family holding including her share therein, in favour of minor son in 1959 and was cultivating the land in her capacity as the guardian of her minor son. The same is not borne out by any evidence on record. Therefore, the fact as recorded by ALT that apart from respondent No.2, the mother was also entitled to one unit on her own is not shown to be incorrect in any manner whatsoever. If one sees the impugned order of the Tribunal, no such contention is raised by the State Government before the Tribunal. If one reads the revisional order made by the Deputy Collector, the said order also does not refer to any relinquishment of share by the mother. Hence, it is apparent that the entire petition is based on misconception of facts and does not merit acceptance. 7. The petition is accordingly rejected. Rule discharged for the foregoing reasons. Interim relief stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (D.A.Mehta, J.) M.M.BHATT