STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner ­ State of Gujarat has challenged the order dated 9th April, 2010 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.TEN/BA/11/2009, whereby the revision preferred by the State against the order dated 29.06.2004 passed by the Deputy Collector in Tenancy- Appeal No.20/2004 has been rejected.

(2.) THE facts of the case stated briefly are that the land bearing Survey No.336 of Village Chandlodiya, admeasuring Acres 0 ­ 14 Gunthas (hereinafter referred to as "the subject land") was owned by one Vallabhbhai Dhanjibhai Patel. Sometime in the year 1956-57, the name of one Manilal Kalidas came to be introduced as an ordinary tenant in respect of the subject land. It appears that in the year 1977, the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Mamlatdar and ALT), initiated proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by issuing notices to the landlord as well as Manilal Kalidas. In the said proceedings the statement of Manilal Kalidas came to be recorded on 6 th July, 1977, whereby he had stated that the subject land was owned by Vallabhbhai Dhanjibhai Patel (the respondent No.7 herein) and that his name has been recorded as an ordinary tenant in the second rights column in the record of rights. However, in the past, he had never cultivated the land, nor was he presently cultivating the land. He has further stated that he is not aware as to under what circumstances, his name has been introduced as a tenant. That he has never cultivated the subject land and he does not desire to purchase the subject land. It appears that on the date of hearing the landlord was not present. The Mamlatdar and ALT, after examining the record of rights, observed that the same reflected that Manilal Kalidas was a registered tenant despite which Manilal Kalidas, in his deposition, has stated that he had never cultivated the subject land and was of the opinion that in view of the position as reflected in the record, his deposition could not be accepted. He, accordingly, by an order dated 3 rd March, 1986, held Manilal Kalidas to be a deemed purchaser as he was a tenant on 1.4.1957. He further held that since the tenant was not desirous of purchasing the subject land, the sale had become ineffective and the subject land was, therefore, required to be disposed of under section 32-P of the Act.

(3.) MS . Nisha Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently assailed the impugned order as well as the order passed by the Deputy Collector, by submitting that both the authorities below had erred in entertaining the appeal on merits despite the fact that there was a considerable delay on the part of the respondent No.7 ­ Vallabhbhai Dhanjibhai Patel in challenging the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT. It was emphatically argued that the Mamlatdar and ALT had passed the order on 3 rd March, 1986, whereas the appeal had been preferred before the Deputy Collector on 17 th March, 2004, that is, after a period of about sixteen years. Under the circumstances, the Deputy Collector was not justified in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It was pointed out that pursuant to the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, corresponding mutation entry also came to be made in the year 1996.