VANKAR JETHABHAI MANGALBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, present appellants - original petitioners have challenged the order dtd. 12/3/2021 passed by learned Single Judge in captioned writ petition, by which, learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the orders passed by the concerned authorities, by which, an application filed for condonation of delay in challenging the orders confiscating the land of the appellants for breaching the conditions of the land, which was granted to the forefathers of the appellants was dismissed on the ground of huge delay and that too, without proper action.

(2.) Short facts arise from the record are that the case of the original petitioners is that the land in question is an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 214/1 admeasuring 0/15/18 H-R- Sq.mtrs. situated at Village Gothada, Taluka Savali, District : Vadodara. It is the case of the petitioners that some where in the year 1930, the revenue record reflects that originally the said land runs in the name of Karsaniya Lakhiya, who expired and by way of mutation entry no. 1025, name of Mangalbhai Krushna came to be entered in the revenue record. In the year 1951-52, according to the petitioners, it is falsely reflected that the said land is allotted by the Government by way of mutation entry no. 2937 and the forefather of the petitioners were made agriculturist since 1951-52 onwards and despite that the erroneous entry came to be mutated. It is the case of the petitioners that on 20/6/1986 the Deputy Collector, Savali has executed a false case for breach of condition against the forefather of the petitioners and mutated the land in the name of the Government by way of an order as stated in Case No. Vatan/Vashi/1149/86. According to the petitioners, in the year 2019, the Government has published a scheme for farmers and in the said scheme the Government gave Rs.6,000.00 per month who is the farmer and who possess agricultural land and, therefore, with a view to get the said benefit one Jethabhai Mangalbhai Vankar who is the husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner no. 2 has taken out the relevant revenue record right from the year 1951-52 to 2019-19 which came to be received in the month of May, 2019. Accordingly, the said Jethabhai Mangalbhai Vankar having realized, had challenged the said order which was passed in the year 1986 by way of an appeal before the Collector, along with delay condonation application. The petitioners case is that without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Collector, Vadodara was pleased to reject the application for condonation of delay vide order dtd. 14/10/2019 and feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached respondent no. 1 i.e. Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department, by filing Revision Application No. MVV/JMN/Vadad/11 of 2019 under Sec. 211 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code read with Rule 108 (6-A) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules. According to the petitioners during the pendency of the said revision application, on 16/3/2020, the said Jethabhai Mangalbhai Vankar passed away and petitioner no. 1 being widow and petitioner no. 2 daughter of said Jethabhai Mangalbhai Vankar became the owner of the said land and as such have made an attempt to prosecute further the revision application. Further, according to the petitioners without considering all these relevant circumstances vide order dtd. 22/6/2020, the Secretary, (Appeals) Revenue Department, was pleased to dismiss the revision application and confirmed the order passed by the Collector. The aforesaid order was challenged by the original petitioners by way of filing captioned writ petition. The learned Single Judge, having found no substance in the petition, upheld the reasons assigned by two authorities, who have refused delay of 32 years in challenging the order. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Mr. Dharmesh Gurjar, learned advocate for the appellants, would submit that the authorities as well as learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that the applicants are totally illiterate persons and were not aware about the orders passed by the authorities. He, therefore, would submit that the appeal may be allowed.