STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VIJAYBHAI KASTHURBHAI RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitionerState has assailed the order dtd. 31/8/2005 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT/ Tribunal) in Review Application No.TEN.C.A.17/ 2004, wherein and whereby the Tribunal has allowed the review application filed by the private respondent No.1 and has set aside the order dtd. 21/9/1999 passed by the Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.B.A.100/1997 and accordingly, has restored the order dtd. 16/1/1997 passed by the Deputy Collector (L.R.), Vadodara in Tenancy Revision Case No.68 of 1996 and has declared that the respondent No.2 is not a tenant of the suit land. FACTS:

(2.) The agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No.373/A situated at Village Savad, Taluka-Dist. Vadodara belonged to respondent No.3-Education Trust. In the year 1985, the respondent No.2 filed Tenancy Case No.68 of 1985 before the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara under Sec. 70-B of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the Tenancy Act"). After holding inquiry, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara declared the respondent No.2 as the tenant of the suit property vide order dtd. 1/3/1996.

(3.) Learned AGP Mr.Kanara appearing for the petitioner-State has submitted that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in entertaining the review application, after a period of 04 years and such review application could not have been entertained at the behest of the private respondent, who was not a party to the original proceedings. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 has filed the review application in the year 2004 against the order passed by the Tribunal dtd. 21/9/1999, which was not required to be entertained in view of the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957 (for short "the Tribunal Act") read with Sec. 76 of the Tenancy Act since the same is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the State Government will loose huge amount of revenue in the form of premium, if the impugned order dtd. 31/8/2005 passed by the Tribunal is not set aside and hence, the writ petition was filed.