KASHIRAM BHAVDUBHAI BHOY Vs. REVENUE SECRETARY APPEALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Learned AGP, Mr.P.R.Abichandani is directed to accept notice in this appeal. Ms.Desai for the appellant to supply copy of the memo of appeal along with its annexures to Mr.Abichandani during the course of the day.

(2.) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is heard and disposed of by this order today. Appellant-petitioner-Kashiram Bhavdubhai Bhoy is a tribal person residing at the remote place of village Bilma of Taluka Ahwa, District Dangs. He was not having any agricultural land for cultivating, therefore, he applied for the land from the State Government for cultivation on yearly basis and the permission was granted to him in the year 1991 for cultivation of the land on yearly basis. Since then the appellant was cultivating the land. In 1995 he applied to the respondent No.2 for regularizing his right to cultivate the said land, but by an order dated 28.1.1999 (Annexure-D) respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that it cannot be regularized as the land in question was required for some public purpose. This impugned order dated 28.1.1999 passed by the Collector, respondent No.2 was challenged by the appellant-petitioner by way of revision application under Section 211 of Bombay Land Revenue Code on 18.12.2002 with an application for condonation of delay before the respondent No.1. The same was rejected by the respondent No.1 by his order dated 9.5.2003 (Annexure-E) simply on the ground that there was a gross delay in filing the revision application late before him against the impugned order at Annexure-D passed by the Collector on 28.1.1999 and the reasons assigned in it were wholly unsustainable for condoning the delay.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 9.5.2003 the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.12050 of 2003 before this court under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. However, learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : K.A.Puj, J.) by an order dated 18.8.2003 dismissed the petition summarily on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.