RAJPUT NAGJI BHAGWAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (Ceiling) No. 1 at Tharad (`the first authority for convenience) on 15/02/1979 in Ceiling Case No. 20 of 1976 (Gela) as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Deputy Collector at Tharad (`the appellate authority for convenience). On 13/08/1980 in Ceiling Appeal No. 35 of 1980 as further affirmed in revision by the decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (`the Tribunal for convenience) on 17/02/1984 in Revision Application No. Ten. B. A. 865 of 1982 is under challenging in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order the first authority declared the holding of the petitioner to be in excess of the ceiling area by 4 acres and declared the excess to be surplus vesting in the State Government.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner was found holding agricultural lands to the tune of 58 acres in village Gela taluka Tharad district Banaskantha as on 1/04/1976. The ceiling area fixed for that local area under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act 1960 (`the Act for brief) is 54 acres The first authority thereupon undertook the necessary inquiry under Section 21 of the Act. It came to be registered as Ceiling Case No. 20 of 1976 (Gela). After recording evidence and hearing the parties by his order passed on 15/02/1979 in the aforesaid proceedings the first authority came to the conclusion that the petitioners holding was in excess of the ceiling area by 4 acres and cleared the excess to have vested in the State Government. Its copy is at Annexure C to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the appellate authority by means of his Ceiling Appeal No. 35 of 1980. By his order passed on 13/08/1980 in the aforesaid appeal the appellate authority dismissed it as time-barred. Its copy is at Annexure B to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner thereupon unsuccessfully invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal by means of his Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 865 of 1982 By its decision rendered on 17/02/1984 in the aforesaid revisional application the Tribunal rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon knocked the doors of this Court by means of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure C to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure B to this petition as further affirmed in revision by the decision at Annexure A to this petition.

(3.) It is unfortunate that the petitioners appeal before the appellate authority has been dismissed as time-barred only on the ground that the initimation of the order at Annexure C to this petition was given to the petitioner by registered post and there was on record an acknowledgement receipt showing the receipt thereof by him. It transpires from the vakalatnama filed on behalf of the petitioner in this case and the sworn copy of a petition that the petitioner is illiterate and he puts his thump impression in token of his signature. It does not become clear from the appellate order at Annexure B to this petition or the impugned decision at Annexure A to this petition whether or not the acknowledgement receipt showing the receipt of the impugned order at Annexure C to this petition by the petitioner bore his signature or his thump impression. If it bore his signature it would be obvious that it was certainly not received by him. If it bore some thumb impression it is possible that the village postman might have delivered the registered article to someone in absence of the petitioner and might have obtained someone elses thumb impression and that someone might have forgotten to handover that registered packet to the present petitioner. Anything can happen in the rural area. In that view. of the matter without ascertaining the true position in that regard the petitioners case about non-receipt of the impugned order at Annexure C to this petition ought to have been disbelieved simply on the strength of some acknowledgement receipt in the record of the case.