GOVANBHAI BAHADURBHAI PATEL Vs. DAJIBHAI KHUSHALBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Japee appears for respondent Nos 1 to 4 and Ms.Pandit, Ld.AGP appears for respondent No.5 and 6 and waive service of rule respectively. With the consent of learned counsel for parties matter is finally heard today.

(2.) The relevant facts of the petition are that the petitioners preferred revision before the Dy.Collector against the decision of the Mamalatdar dated 29.3.01. However, the said revision was preferred after a period of about 11 months. The ground contended by the petitioners before the Dy.Collector was that one of the applicants, namely Champakbhai Bhuvanbhai had serious sickness of cancer and expired on 8.1.2002 and thereafter immediately revision was preferred on 26.4.02 and therefore it was requested that since said Champakbhai Bhuvanbhai was bedridden for the last six months the delay be condoned. The learned Dy.Collector found that Champakbhai Bhuvanbhai was one of the applicants and there were other persons also who could have preferred revision and hence the delay was not condoned and the revision is dismissed as per the order dated 9.7.02 which is challenged in this petition by the petitioner.

(3.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view that the law is settled on the point regarding consideration of the case for condonation of delay. It does appear that the ground shown for condonation of delay can be said to be sufficient. However, the Collector has taken the view that since there were also other applicants who could have preferred revision within stipulated time limit he has taken strict view of the matter and the delay is not condoned. Further, in my view, the Collector while considering the question of condonation of delay ought to have also considered that whether the delay could be condoned by awarding costs as compensation to the other side for the default on the part of the person who has caused delay. It appears that there is no discussion on the said aspect. But, even if the facts and circumstances of the case are considered, the Dy.Collector could have exercised discretion while condoning the delay by awarding suitable costs.