NAMISHBHAI YADUKANT PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad ('the Tribunal' for convenience) on 23rd July 1985 in Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 1628 of 1983 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Thereby the Tribunal upset the order passed by the Deputy Collector of Viramgam Prant at Ahmedabad on 28th April 1981 granting permission to respondent No. 2 herein to sell one parcel of land bearing Block No. 217 admeasuring 4 acres 11 gunthas situated in village Bhadaj taluka Dascroi district Ahmedabad ('the disputed land' for convenience) in favour of the present petitioners under sec. 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Act' for brief).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The disputed land originally belonged to respondent No. 2 herein. It appears that he became its deemed purchaser under the Act. He applied to the Deputy Collector of Viramgam Prant at Ahmedabad for permission under Sec. 43 of the Act for sale of the disputed land in favour of the present petitioners. By his order passed on 28th April 1981, the Deputy Collector granted such permission. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition. It appears that, about 2 1/2 yers thereafter, respondent No. 1 invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure A to this petition. It came to be registered as Revisional Application No. TEN.B.A. 1628 of 1983. Respondent No. 1 and the present petitioners were shown as the opponents therein. On behalf of the petitioners, the revisional procedings were resisted inter alia by pressing into service the bar of limitation contained in Sec. 79 of the Act. By its decision rendered on 23rd July 1985 in the aforesaid revisional application, the Tribunal accepted it and set aside the order at Annexure A to this petition. A copy of its decision is at Annexure B to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the decision at Annexure B to this petition.

(3.) It is an admitted postion on record that the revisional application in question was made by respondent No. 1 about 2 1/2 years after the date of the order at Annexure A to this petition. Section 79 of the Act prescribes the period of limitation to be 60 days inter alia for preferring an application for revision against the order passed by the Collector. The order at Annexure A is admittedly under Sec. 43 of the Act and it is said to have been passed by the Deputy Collector in exercise of his powers as Collector. His order could have been challenged in revision within 60 days from its date in view of Sec. 79 of the Act. It has also been provided therein that the provisions of Sections 4,5,12 and 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 would apply inter alia for filling of such application for revision. It is an admitted position on record that no application for condonation of the delay in preferring the revisional application before the Tribunal was made by or on behalf of respondent No. 1.