KOLI KANKUBEN TASABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23/07/1993 passed by the Deputy Collector in Saratbhang Case No. 19/1991­92 as well as the order dated 11/01/2011 passed in Jameen Vivad Case No. 68/10­11 by the Collector and the affirming the order passed by Additional Secretary (Appeal) in Revision Application No. 31/2011 dated 10/04/2013.

(2.) It appears that the land was granted to the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner no. 2 and 3 for personal cultivation in the year 1964. However, for breach of condition, the Deputy Collector initiated proceedings by registering Saratbhang Case No. 19/1991­92 and passed order dated 23/07/1993 to vest the land with the government on the ground that the land was kept uncultivated for more than 3 years. Such order was challenged before the Collector by the petitioners by filing an appeal under section 203 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code 1879 ("Code") in the year 2010. The Collector rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was preferred after a long period of 17 years and thus the appeal was time barred. Against the order of the Collector, the petitioners preferred the revision application before the Additional Secretary who was rejected the said revision application by order dated 10/04/2013.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Goswami for the petitioners submitted that after the death of the husband of the petitioner no. 1, proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Collector wherein the petitioners were not made parties and therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Collector was in breach of principles of natural justice. Mr. Goswami submitted that the collector dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay without appreciating the circumstances under which the petitioners were not served with the notice by the Deputy Collector. Mr. Goswami further submitted that the alleged non­cultivation of the land was for very short period and therefore, the land granted to the petitioners were not required to be vested to the State Government especially when the petitioners continued to occupy the land even after the order was made by the Deputy Collector.