BHIKHABHAI MAVJIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 30/07/1984 in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 590 of 1984 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Thereby the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's revisional application against the order passed by the Assistant Collector at Dholka on 5th October, 1977 in Ceiling Appeal No. 199 of 1977 as hopelessly time-barred.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are not many and not much in dispute. The petitioner was found holding certain parcels of land in all admeasuring 45 acres 7 gunthas in village Moti Boru, Taluka Dholka, District Ahmedabad (Rural) on 1/04/1976. The Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (No. 4) at Dholka (the first authority for convenience) undertook the necessary inquiry under Sec. 20 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 ('the Act' for brief) to find out whether or not the petitioner's holding was in excess of the ceiling area fixed thereunder. It came to be registered as Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1976 (Moti Boru). After recording evidence and hearing the parties, by his order passed on 21/02/1977 in Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1976, the first authority declared the petitioner's holding to be in excess of the ceiling area by 6 acres 7 gunthas. Its copy is at Annexure 'A' to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Assistant Collector at Dholka. His appeal came to be registered as Ceiling Appeal No. 199 of 1977. By his order passed on 5/10/1977 in the aforesaid appeal, the Assistant Collector at Dholka dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure 'B' to this petition. It appears that, in the meantime, the compensation proceedings with respect to the surplus land declared under the order at Annexure 'A' to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure 'B' to this petition came to be initiated by the first authority some time in 1980. It appears that some compensation was fixed for the surplus land. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the appellate authority. It appears that appeal came to be withdrawn. The petitioner thereafter invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad by means of his Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 590 of 1984 questioning the correctness of the order passed by the first authority at Annexure 'A' to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure 'B' to this petition. By its decision rendered on 30/07/1984 in the aforesaid revisional application, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad rejected it as hopelessly timebarred. Its copy is at Annexure 'C' to this petition. The petitioner has thereupon invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the approach of the Tribunal and its decision pursuant thereto at Annexure C' to this petition.

(3.) Shri Shah for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner approached the Tribunal with a specific case that he was given no intimation of the appellate order at Annexure 'B' to this petition, and as such the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's revisional application without recording a finding to the effect that the appellate order at Annexure 'B' to this petition was in face served to him. Shri Shah for the petitioner has also criticised the approach of the Tribunal in dealing with the matter more particularly when it permitted the respondent herein to press into service the bar of limitation for frustrating the petitioner's just case. As against this, Shri Mehta for the respondent has urged that the Tribunal has recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioner in fact knew of the appellate order at Annexure 'B' to this petition as admitted by him during the compensation proceedings initiated some time in 1980 with respect to the surplus land declared by the order at Annexure A to this petition as affirmed by the appellate order at Annexure 'B' to this petition. In that view of the matter, runs the submission of Shri Mehta for the respondent, it did not lay in the mouth of the petitioner to approach the Tribunal with the case that the intimation of the appellate order at Annexure 'B' to this petition was not given to him. Shri Mehta for the respondent has urged that the impugned decision at Annexure 'C' to this petition is quite just and proper and calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its limited powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.