DALSUKHBHAI CHATURBHAI PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, have been filed by the original petitioner, who is common in both the petitions, on being aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge in the respective petitions by which the petitions were dismissed.

(2.) For the purposes of this order, we shall consider the facts in Letters Patent Appeal No. 813 of 2020 which is filed challenging the order dtd. 28/9/2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8617 of 2020. In Special Civil Application No. 8617 of 2020 filed by the petitioner - appellant herein, the petitioner - appellant made the following prayers :

(3.) Mr. Mihir Thakore and Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocates have appeared with Mr. Parthiv Shah, learned advocate for the appellants. Mr. Thakore leading the submissions would submit that there was a delayed invocation of revisional power by the Deputy Collector under Sec. 76A of the Tenancy Act. Reading the provisions of Sec. 76A, Mr. Thakore would submit that in exercising the powers of revision, the Collector has to call for the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of the Mamlatdar for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality and propriety of the order and pass an order as he deems fit. Emphasizing on the proviso, he would submit that the proviso indicates that no such record shall be called for after the expiry of one year from the date of such order and no order of such Mamlatdar. In other words, Mr. Thakore would submit that the order of the Mamlatdar was dtd. 16/7/2018 disposing of the Tenancy Case No. 14 of 2018. The order was sent on the very day by the Mamlatdar to the Deputy Collector. He would submit that the sending of the order to the Deputy Collector is not "calling for the records of any inquiry". In fact, calling for the record would imply that the Deputy Collector had to apply his mind and decide whether it was a fit case to call for the records. He would submit that reliance placed on the letter dtd. 16/7/2018 annexed to the reply would indicate that it was not an action which can be termed as calling for the record.