DARABSHA SORABJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Additional Mamlatdar & A.L.T. (Ceiling), Bardoli, by his order dated 12-5-1986, passed in Ceiling Case No. 23 of 1976, held that the petitioner was not having excess land. Therefore, in exercise of his powers under Sec. 20(2) of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"), he ordered to withdrew the Notice issued to the petitioner. However, the Government was not satisfied with the said order, therefore, decided to take the matter in suo motu revision under Sec. 37 of the Act, under which the Collector is empowered to take up the matter in its suo motu powers. Accordingly, Notice dated 6-4-1987 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to remain personally present on 24-4-1987 at Bardoli. After hearing the petitioner the learned Dy. Collector, by his order dated 4-5-1987 (Annexure : B) set aside the order dated 12-5-1986 passed by the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. and remanded the case to him for his fresh decision, in accordance with law. However, once again, the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. (Ceiling), Bardoli, by his order dated 7-2-1992 (Annexure : C) held that the petitioner was not holding any excess land. Therefore, he discharged the Notice and closed the proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner in Ceiling Case No. 23 of 1976. This time again the State Government took up the matter in Review under Sec. 37 of the Act, and accordingly, the Dy. Collector, Vyara, in exercise of his suo motu powers, issued Notice to the petitioner and after hearing him, he dismissed the Revision Application and confirmed the judgment and order (Annexure : C) passed by the Mamlatdar & A.L.T., by his judgment and order dated 31-7-1993.

(2.) Surprisingly, this time, the Dy. Mamlatdar (Revenue) filed Revision Application No. 13 of 1994 under Sec. 38 of the Act before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short "the Tribunal"). Though, it was barred by period of limitation of 60 days, without filing any application in it for condoning the said delay, the Tribunal condoned the delay.

(3.) Before the learned Tribunal, it was contended by the petitioner that such a revision, against the order of Dy. Collector, would not be maintainable and even if it is maintainable then also it should not be entertained as it was time- barred and there was no application filed for condoning the delay. Alternatively, it was submitted that on previous two occasion the matter was taken up in mo motu Revision, and ultimately, even on remand the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. and the Dy. Collector, both concurrently held in favour of the petitioner that he was not holding any excess land. Therefore, such orders passed by the authority below could not have been interfered by the Tribunal in its revisional jurisdiction as the scope of revision application was very narrow and limited. However, the learned Tribunal while condoning the delay of 60 days, entertained the revision application and without dealing with the reasons assigned by the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. and Dy. Collector in their orders set aside the same and once again remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. for deciding the same in accordance with law and the observation made by the Tribunal by order dated 30-11-1994 (Annexure : E), which is challenged in this petition under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.