SHAILJI BALUBHA VAGHELA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners being heirs and legal representatives of original land owners Khanaji Revaji Thakore and Sababa Wd/o. Khanaji Revaji Thakore have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the orders dated 02.08.1983 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Palanpur in Ceiling Case No.145/1977 and the order dated 03.07.1984 passed by the Deputy Collector, Tharad in Ceiling Appeal No.11/1984 and the judgment and order dated 10.12.1986 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.1108/1984.

(2.) FACTS leading to filing of the present Special Civil Application in nut -shell are as under:

(3.) IN view of the delay of 25 years and the preliminary objection being raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Shri Y.N. Oza, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that as such petitioners are in possession of the disputed land in question and only a paper possession was taken and therefore, the delay shall not come in the way of the petitioners. It is submitted that the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners died and therefore, the petitioners being illiterate did not get the proper advice at the relevant time and therefore, at the relevant time did not challenge the orders passed by the aforesaid authorities. Shri Oza, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that even the petitioners have not been offered the compensation for the surplus land and therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sreelatha Bhupal etc. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Revenue, 1990 1 SCC 318, it is submitted that unless the compensation for the surplus land has been paid, it cannot be said that the land has vested in the State Government absolutely free from all encumbrances. It is, therefore, submitted that when the land had not been vested in the State Government, it is requested to consider the case of the petitioners on merit.