AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners herein are before this court on being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 21.11.2016, whereby an appeal under Section 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 read with the provision of the Garo Hills Autonomous District (Land & Revenue) Regulation, 1954 has been dismissed on the ground of delay, as being beyond the limitation period as prescribed in Section 148 (h) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. The ground for dismissal was that no application for condonation of delay filed alongwith the appeal, nor any explanation offered as to the reasons for the delay.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties.
Ms. A. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been compelled to approach this Court for appropriate directions to allow the petitioners to re-agitate the appeal by allowing them to file appropriate application for condonation of delay in the appeal that has since been dismissed. She therefore prays that the matter be remanded for re-consideration.
Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-3 submits that an appeal against the impugned order would not lie before this Court as alternative remedy is available in the form of a Tribunal, which is usually constituted by the District Council. He draws attention of this Court to the Garo Hills Autonomous District (Land & Revenue) Regulation, 1954 at Section 3 (3) which is quoted herein below:
"3. Adoption of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 and the rules made hereunder. - (3) Reference to the Tribunal in the said Chapters or Sections or in the said rules shall be construed as references to the District Revenue Tribunal to be constituted by, or under the orders of the Executive Committee for disposal of all appeal cases pertaining to land revenue matters."
Mr. D. Nandi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 supports the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-3 and submits that the writ petition apart from having no merits is not maintainable due to the availability of alternative remedy. As such, he prays the same should be dismissed in limine.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances at hand. On perusal of the impugned order dated 22.11.2016, it appears that though there was a delay of 6(six) months and 25(twenty-five) days, beyond the period of limitation, no application for condonation of delay was filed, nor the delay was explained, as such the appeal came to be summarily dismissed. The petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order however, have approached this Court, though; admittedly alternative remedy is available to them by way of an appeal under Section 3 (3) of the Garo Hills Autonomous District (Land & Revenue) Regulation, 1954. Ordinarily, the instant petition would have been dismissed as not maintainable before this Court, however in the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioners are at liberty to file an appeal before the District Revenue Tribunal of the GHADC, as provided in Section 3 (3) of the Regulation before the District Revenue Tribunal and the District Revenue Tribunal on such an appeal being filed, shall consider the matter in accordance with law.
With the following directions, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.