AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
[a] The Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned orders at Annexure "D" and "J" hereto;
[b] Pending, admission and final disposal of this petition, the Hon''ble Court may be pleased to stay execution, operation and implementation of the impugned orders at Annexure "D" and "J" hereto;
[c] & [d] ....
The short facts of the case are that the Petitioners have preferred a suit being Tenancy Case No. 40/19991 Under Sections 70(b), 32O and 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, ["the Act" for short] and application being No. 41/1999 before the Mamlatdar and ALT in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 1168 and 1169 situated at Village Vanch, Tal. & District Ahmedabad. However, the said land was owned by Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioners herein were cultivating the said land since 1971 as tenants. In the said application, initially the Mamlatdar vide order dated 17.06.1999 had directed the parties to maintain status-quo till the final disposal of the suit. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 1 preferred an application dated 19.07.1999 before the Mamlatdar to permit him to join as party to the suit proceedings. The Mamlatdar vide order dated 17.11.1999 allowed the said application. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 without joining the Petitioners challenged the order passed by the Mamlatdar in the year 1962 by way of an appeal being Tenancy Appeal No. 147/1999. The Mamlatdar vide order dated 28.02.2000 allowed the said appeal. Against the said order, the Petitioners preferred Revision Application No. 227/2000 along with an application for staying the order passed by the Deputy Collector, before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 14.11.2000 rejected the application on the ground of delay. Hence, this petition.
Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The authority has rejected the application preferred by the Petitioner not on merits but, on the ground of delay. Hence, in the fitness of things, it would be appropriate that the revision application preferred by the Petitioner is decided by the concerned authority on merits.
Consequently, the order dated 14.11.2000 passed by the Respondent authority is quashed and set aside. The Respondent authority shall proceed with the hearing of the revision application preferred by the Petitioner and decide the same on merits, in accordance with law, after condoning the delay caused in filing the same. It is made clear that this Court has quashed the order of Respondent-authority not on merits and therefore, while adjudicating the issue, the authority shall not be influenced by the fact that this Court has quashed its earlier order. It is however, observed that while deciding the delay condonation application, the authority shall consider the contentions raised by the respective parties.
With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.