KADVIBEN MASHRUBHAI VAGHARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 4.4.2019 passed by the respondent No.1 in MVV/JMN/BTD-7/2018 rejecting the revision application of the petitioners and confirming the order passed by the respondent No.2 as being arbitrary, illegal and against the settled legal principles.

(2.) Short facts leading to present petition is that, the petitioners were cultivating the land bearing R.S. No.103 paiki (103/la/p/7) admeasuring 6 - A - 06- G situated at moje Limbadiya, taluka Gadhada, district Botad. The said land was allotted by the Dy. Collector, Palitana vide order No.Land-Jamin- Sathani/99/1965 on 15.6.1967 in favour of the deceased father of the petitioners namely Mashrubhai Chhanabhai Vaghari. It is contended that in the year 2008, the respondent No.3 initiated suo-motu proceedings for alleged breach of conditions on the ground that subject land remained uncultivated for a period from 1985-86 to 1989-90. The notice was issued to the father of the petitioners who was died much before 17.8.2003 and thereafter, the respondent No.3 without providing any report from the authority and without making any inquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing, passed the order dated 13.5.2011 to forfeit the land in favour of the State Government. It is the case of the petitioners that they are agriculturists depending upon the income from the subject land and the forfeiture order was not communicated to the petitioners and no notice was issued for passing such order. The petitioners are poor agriculturists and illiterate persons and were unaware of the order passed by the respondent No.3. It is the case of the petitioners that in April 2018, the petitioners came to know about the order passed by the respondent No.3 and immediately sought legal advise and then preferred appeal before the respondent No.2 with an application to condone delay, but the said appeal was rejected on the ground of delay of 6 years and the said order was challenged before the respondent No.1 by way of revision application and the same was rejected confirming the order passed by the respondent No.2.

(3.) At the time of arguments, learned advocates for the petitioners, in support of his case, has relied on the judgment of this Court in case of Bharwad Vela Mepa Legal Heir of Bharwad Mepa Versus State of Gujarat [2005 (8) GLH 673]. He has also relied on the another judgment in case of Koli Popatbhai Talsibhai Versus Secretary Appeal [2017 (2) GLH 264] wherein there was a delay of 4 years and it was observed that,