HEMANGIBEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Special Civil Application has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The factual matrix in the present case is that the father of the petitioner herein was allotted land bearing Survey No.191 paiki Plot Nos.1 and 2 admeasuring 7,610 sq. mts. at Bamanbor, Taluka Chotila, District Surendranagar by order dtd. 3/6/1980 vide order No.Land-2/Audhyo/95/79. That thereafter, the father of the petitioner paid the requisite amount and the possession of the land was handed over to him on 28/10/1980. That, thereafter, the father of the petitioner also submitted the lay out plan for construction of the industry which came to be sanctioned on 27/3/1981. That the father of the petitioner expired on 30/12/1996. It is the case of the petitioner that after his death, they came to know that their father was holding the said industrial land and therefore, they filed an application for succession certificate in the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Chotila and by order dtd. 3/5/2014, they were granted certificate of heirship. That thereafter on 2/3/2015, the petitioner made the payment of the outstanding dues towards the said industrial land. That on 24/4/2015, the petitioner made an application to the Collector, Surendranagar for sale of such land allotted to their father. That thereafter the Collector, Surendranagar initiated proceedings for breach of conditions and, accordingly, a show-cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner as to why the land should not be taken back by the State Government in view of breach of conditions committed by the father of the petitioner. That the petitioner thereafter replied to the show-cause notice. The Dy. Collector & Prant Officer, Chotila also submitted his report dtd. 7/7/2015 in respect of the land in question. By order dtd. 1/8/2018, the Collector, Surendranagar was pleased to pass an order directing that the land be resumed by the Statement Government in view of the breach of the condition Nos.3, 8, 11 and 12 in the allotment order. That thereafter the petitioner herein challenged the said order dtd. 1/8/2018 before the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ["GRT" for short] in March 2021. Along with the said revision application, the petitioner also filed application for condonation of delay of 2 years and 7 months in filing the revision application. By the impugned judgment and order dtd. 15/9/2021, the learned GRT was pleased to reject the said delay condonation application. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application.

(3.) Mr. K.S.Chandrani, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the learned GRT ought not to have dismissed the delay condonation application on the technical ground. He submitted that the petitioner was married and was residing at her matrimonial home; she was unaware of any transactions carried out by her late father. Thereafter, when she came to know about the land held by her father, she initiated appropriate proceedings. It was submitted that since the petitioner is not aware of her rights and the procedure to be followed, there was some time consumed which has resulted in delay. He submits that the petitioner in her application for condonation of delay has stated that she is coming from lower strata of the society and is not financially sound; that she has to make arrangement for funds and collect necessary documents to hand over the same for filing the revision application before the learned GRT. It is submitted that all this procedure took some time. It is further submitted that there was no intention to prolong or delay the proceedings. It is further submitted that because of COVID pandemic in the year 2020, the petitioner could not take necessary steps during the said period till the filing of the revision application in March 2021. It is submitted that the petitioner has a good case on merits and the learned GRT ought to have taken a lenient view and condoned the delay. He submitted that if the revision application is dismissed on the ground of delay, the petitioner will have to suffer great financial loss and the same ought to have also taken into consideration by the learned GRT while adjudicating the application for condonation of delay. He, therefore, submitted that the present Special Civil Application be allowed and the delay in filing the revision application before the learned GRT be condoned and the revision application be heard on merits. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Special Civil Application No.12685 of 2015 dtd. 24/8/2021 [para 14 and 15], Appeal from Order Nos.941 of 2020 and 3989 of 2020 dtd. 15/2/2022 [para 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 14], in case of Dahyabhai Laldas (Decd.) through His Heirs & Legal Representatives Bhikhubhai Dahyabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [1997 (2) GLH 633][para 7 and 8] and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. MST Katiji [1987 (2) SCC 107].