GAM DHARMADA TRUST AMBADA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, invoking article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 07.06.1995 in Revision Application No.TEN.B.S.273/1993, whereby the order passed by Mamlatdar & ALT (Ceiling) Navsari, dated 28.12.1990 is upheld. The said order of the mamlatdar was passed under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960.

(2.) HEARD Mr.R.N.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.L.Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State.

(3.) 1 So far as the first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, to the effect that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has not passed the reasoned order, is concerned, reference can be made to para-6 of the impugned order, which reads as under. "6. Considering the rival submissions of the learned advocates on both the sides and on going through the record of the case, it clearly transpires from the certificate at page 3 of the Deputy Collector's record that the order passed by the ALT, Navsari, in Ceiling Case No.398/88 dated 28.12.90 was called for review and it was received by the office on 8.2.91 and the said order was reviewed by the R.D.C., Valsad, who found it correct, and for that purpose he has issued the certificate dated 7.3.91. Thereafter, if we turn to page 5, there is a letter dated 25.9.91 written by the R.D.C., Valsad, to the Deputy Collector (L.R.), Valsad, stating that the aforesaid case was taken in review by the Deputy Collector (L.R.), Gandhinagar, who had issued directions to take this case in review and to take steps as per the notes prepared by him, under sec.37 of the Act. This shows that the impugned order of the ALT, Navsari, dated 28.12.90 was once reviewed by the R.D.C., Valsad, and found it correct, and in token thereof he has issued the certificate dated 7.3.91 at page 3 of the Deputy Collector's record. Thereafter, again the same order of the ALT was taken in review by the Deputy Collector (L.R.), Gandhinagar, which he cannot do for the second time under sec.37 of the Act, because once the competent Deputy Collector has exercised the power of review and found the order correct, those powers of review are used and hence exhausted and the same cannot be re-used for reviewing the same order of the ALT over again. Moreover, once the R.D.C., Valsad, has reviewed the order of the ALT, Navsari, passed in Ceiling Case No.398/88 dated 28.12.90 and has issued a certificate in that respect dated 7.3.91, then the Deputy Collector (L.R.), Gandhinagar, has no business or jurisdiction to take the same order of the ALT in review under sec.37 of the Act. Further, the order of the Mamlatdar & ALT (Ceiling), Navsari, in Ceiling Case No.398/88 dated 28.12.90 was never challenged by the present applicant and, therefore, it has become final, conclusive and binding on the applicant, and now the applicant cannot be permitted to skip over stage of appeal before the Deputy Collector, and straightway approach this Tribunal under sec.38 of the Act. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the second order of review passed by the Deputy Collector (L.R.) Gandhinagar, which has been conveyed by the R.D.C., Valsad, to the Deputy Collector (L.R.), Valsad, by his letter dated 25.9.91 on page 5 is totally meaningless and the subsequent proceeding initiated and orders passed therein are totally bad and non-est. In view of this, the present revision application filed by the present applicant Trust is also not maintainable and hence it deserves to be dismissed. Furthermore, the order passed by the Deputy Collector (L.R.), Gandhinagar, wherein he has made out certain points for review deserves to be quashed and set aside, and further the proceedings taken on the strength of that order also deserves to be quashed and set aside." 5.2 Above quoted one para makes it clear that the impugned order of the tribunal can not be termed as an unreasoned order. On the face of this, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that this is an unreasoned order, can not be accepted and this contention is rejected.