SUO MOTU Vs. AMRUTLAL SHANKERLAL THAKKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Reference has arisen on an order dtd. 4/7/2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in a Special Civil Application No.1664 of 1997 noticing two contrary views in the judgments of the learned Single Judge in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mahmad Yusuf Ahmed Nagani (Special Civil Application No.6943 of 1998 decided on 18/1/1999) and in Vallubhai Kukabhai Boliya vs. State of Gujarat and others - 2005 (2) GLR 1225, with regard to the jurisdiction of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal to entertain and decide the revision application / appeal preferred against the order of the District Collector under Sec. 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 (in short referred to as "the Ordinance, 1949"). The matter was initially referred to a Division Bench, which by oral order dtd. 25/2/2015 has observed that the reference be heard by a Larger Bench of three Judges. By another order dtd. 18/6/2021, three Judges' Bench presided over by the then Chief Justice has directed that the reference be placed before a Division Bench after nomination by the Chief Justice. The reference has, thus, been placed before us. The question under reference is formulated as under :-

(2.) Shri Ravindra Shah and Ms.Trusha Patel, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would submit that the decision of the learned Single Judge in Vallubhai Kukabhai Boliya (supra) does not lay down the correct law. However, with respect to another judgment dtd. 18/1/1999 in Special Civil Application No.6943 of 1998, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge in the said decision did not address the issue with regard to the maintainability of the revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal against an order passed under Sec. 75 of the Ordinance, 1949, inasmuch as, the said issue was not raised before the said Bench. Rather the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay in challenging the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal allowing the review application and setting aside the order passed by the Collector under Sec. 75 of the Ordinance, 1949. There is, thus, no question of conflict.

(3.) Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.Vinay Vishen, learned Assistant Government Pleader has rendered assistance on behalf of the State.