AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the appellant-original petitioner being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 21-9-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge; whereby, the learned Judge was pleased to observe and held as under:
As a result of hearing and perusal of the documents on record, it is found that revisional authority has not entertained the application for delay in preferring the revision application since the application for condonation was filed after a period of almost three years. While considering the delay application, the authority has found that there is gross delay in preferring the revision application. The authority has also considered Sec. 206 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code for delay. No cogent and convincing reasons are assigned for condonation of delay. I am incomplete agreement with the findings of the authority. The petition is summarily rejected.
(Emphasis supplied)
Heard learned Advocate Mr. Prachchhak for the appellant-original petitioner. Learned Advocate invited the attention of the Court to the facts of the case, which are set out in Para. 3 onwards of the memo of petition which reads as under:
3.1. The petitioner submits that father of the petitioner i.e., Sajanbhai was declared as Girasdar along with other family members vide Revenue Entry No. 61 occupying various parcels of agriculture land at Village Rampara-2 of Rajula Taluka, District Amreli. Thereafter, other parcels
of agriculture land bearing Survey Nos. 667/p, 670/p and 672/p at village Rampara-2. Tal. Rajula, Dist. Amreli was also declared in the holding of Girasdar including petitioner vide Revenue Entry No. 113 which was mutated in the village Form No. 6. The petitioner begs to annex a copy of Revenue Entry Nos. 61 and 113 in the village Form No. 6 at Annexure "B" colly. to the petition.
3.2. It is submitted that pursuant to the family arrangement, various parcels of land including land bearing Survey No. 667/p occupied by the petitioner and family members being a Girasdars, was petitioned wherein, land admeasuring 2 A-11 G of Survey No. 667/p came into the share of Harshur Sajan (petitioner) and land admeasuring 4 A-20 G and 2 A-0 G of Surevy No. 667/p came in to the share of Jina Vajsur. That revenue Entry No. 264 dated 20-4-1969 came to be mutated in village Form No. 6 which was certified on 24-8-1969 after due verification of records. The petitioner begs to annex a copy of village Form No. 6 and 7/12 abstract at Annexure "C" to the petition.
3.3. It is submitted that since 1969 petitioner and family members are in lawful occupation and possession of the various parcels of agriculture land as mentioned in the aforesaid revenue entry and are cultivating the land. The petitioner submits that in the year 1992, brother of the petitioner i.e. Rama Sajan relinquished his right qua land admeasuring 2 A-11 G of Surevy No. 667/p in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, Jina Vajsur cousin brother of the petitioner also relinquished his right qua Surevy No. 771/p admeasuring 2 A-26 G in favour of the petitioner. That revenue Entry No. 749 dated 20-1-1992 came to be mutated in favour of the petitioner recording aforesaid relinquishment of rights. That the said revenue entry was also certified on 29-2-1992 upon verification of statement and documents of village revenue records. Thus, petitioner became the lawful owner and occupant of land admeasuring 4 A-22 G of Surevy No. 667/p (hereinafter referred to as the subject land). The petitioner begs to annex a copy of revenue Entry No. 749 dated 22-1-1992 at Annexure "D" to the petition.
3.4. The petitioner humbly submits that thereafter, petitioner vide registered sale-deed dated 3-5-1997 transferred part of land i.e. 2 A-11 G out of total area 4 A-22 G, from Survey No. 667/p in favour of one Met Dist. Industries Ltd. At this stage, it is relevant to note that aforesaid company has purchased various parcels of land from several agriculturists for the purpose of establishment of Industries in Rajula Taluka of Dist. Amreli. The petitioners beg to annex a copy of sale-deed executed in favour of the company by the petitioner for land admeasuring 2 A-11 G of Survey No. 667/p at Annexure "E"'' to the petition. Thus, petitioner remained the lawful owner and occupant of 2 A-11 G of land Survey No. 667/p. The petitioner begs to annex a copy of 7/12 abstract of village revenue records of the year 2000-2001 at Annexure "F" to the petition.
3.5. The petitioner respectfully submits that it appears that earlier respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 18-5-2002 and the same was replied by the petitioner vide reply dated 27-5-2002. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner after a period of more than 32 years from 1969 and 10 years from 1992, a show-cause notice came to be issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner and his brothers purportedly under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 in a suo motu proceedings for cancellation of Revenue Entry Nos. 264 and 749 on the basis of the alleged breach as mentioned in the notice. The petitioner begs to annex a copy of show-cause notice dated 18-6-2003 issued by respondent No. 2 in a suo motu proceedings at Annexure "G" to the petition. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 1-7-2003 to the show-cause notice in addition to its earlier reply. The petitioner begs to annex a copy of reply dated 27-5-2002 and 1-7-2003 at Annexure "H" colly. to the petition.
3.6. The petitioner respectfully submits that, however, respondent No. 2 without application of mind and without assigning specific findings, passed impugned order dated 30-9-2004 thereby cancelling the Revenue Entry Nos. 264 and 749 after a period of more than 32 years and 10 years respectively. The petitioner has already annexed a copy of order dated 30-9-2004 passed by respondent No. 2 at Annexure "A" colly. to this petition. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that all the revenue authorities believed that land ad-measuring 2 A-11 G mutated in favour of the petitioner vide Revenue Entry No. 749 is given by Jina Vajsur from his measurement shown in Revenue Entry No. 264, however, it is required to be clarified that the said land is given by Rama Sajan and not by Jina Vajsur. It is undisputed fact that Rama Sajan was lawfully holding 2 A and 11 G of land of Survey No. 667/p in Revenue Entry No. 264. Moreover, petitioner was also lawfully holding 2 A-11 G of land in Survey No. 667/p. Thus, petitioner has become lawful owner of 4 A-22 G of land of Survey No. 667/p.
However, petitioner has nothing to do with the measurement of land i.e. 4 A-20 G and 2 A-0 G of Survey No. 667/p as mentioned in Revenue Entry No. 264 in favour of Jina Vajsur.
In Para. 3.7, "petitioner has specifically mentions that petitioner submits that due to financial crunch, old age illness and ignorance of law in respect of further challenge of the order before respondent No. 1, petitioner could not challenge further the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 before respondent No. 1 within prescribed period of limitation. However, in the month of January, 2008, upon realisation of the consequence of the impugned order, petitioner preferred Revision Application before the respondent No. 1 along with an application for condonation of delay......"
In light of that, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the settled legal position of the Hon''ble the Apex Court, revisional authority ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant-original petitioner and opportunity to present his case on merits and the Authority (S.S.R.D.) ought not to have non-suited the appellant-original petitioner. It is settled law that non-suiting party on a technical ground causes an immense prejudice to the rights of the parties for the reasons as set out in Para. 3.7 that they could not approach in time.
Heard learned A.G.P. Mr. Sharma for State who is really contesting party. Learned A.G.P. could not dislodge the factual background of the matter; wherein, R.T.S. entry was taken into revision suo motu after expiry of 35 years.
At the request of the parties, it is clarified that this observation is not to be considered to mean that the Court has examined the matter on merits.
In view of the above, order of the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal (S.S.R.D.) to be decided on merits.
At the request of learned Advocate for the appellant, original petitioner, direct service is permitted of this order so that Authority (S.S.R.D.) can give due priority looking to the age of the litigation as well as age of the appellant-original petitioner. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Direct Service is permitted.