STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AMRISH JAGMOHAN PARIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has committed serious error of law in refusing to condone the delay of three years and seven days in filing revision application under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act) and if yes, whether the present petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches in filing the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, is the central theme of the present petition.

(2.) The Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar in tenancy case No. 2580/ 82 decided on 30-4-1983 held that there was no violation of the provisions of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and the respondent No. 1. A. J. Parikh is an agriculturist. The matter was taken in suo motu revision before the Collector in Revision No. 170/83 under Section 76-A of the Tenancy Act. The said revision came to be dismissed confirming the order of the Mamlatdar on 29-12-1983. The order was further questioned by filing a revision application No. 162/87 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad, which also came to be rejected on 5-9-1991 on the ground of delay in filing the revision. Thus the proceedings initiated by the Mamlatdar and ALT under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act on the allegation of violation of the provisions of Section 63 came to be withdrawn and the Mamlatdar held that in view of the provisions of Sections 2(2) and 2(6) of the Tenancy Act, respondent No. 1 is an agriculturist and therefore, no permission was necessary for purchase of agricultural property of respondent No. 2 under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. In short, it was held that there was no breach of the provisions of Section 63 and therefore there was no case for taking action under Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act. The order of the Mamlatdar came to be confirmed in a suo motu revision by the Collector and the revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal came to be rejected on the ground of delay. Hence this petition came to be filed on 17-4-1995.

(3.) The petition is filed more than 4 years and 7 months after the impugned order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal recorded on 5-9- 1991. There is delay of more than 4 years and 7 months in filing the present petition and the petitioner has stated in para 6 of the petition the grounds for belated filing of petition. According to the case of the petitioner, there was correspondence between the Revenue and Legal Department of the State and also between the Departments and the Office of the Collector and also with the Office of the Government Pleader, Ahmedabad. Para 6 of the petition pertaining to the explanation for filing petition late is material which reads as under : The petitioner says that in this case Tribunal decided the matter on 5-9-1991. Thereafter the Revenue Department corresponded with the Legal Department. Collector and Prant Officer and ultimately on 6-2-1993, the Legal Department informed the Government Pleader, High Court that in this matter the Government desires to file writ petition before the High Court. Thereafter the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court informed the concerned department to send the relevant papers and on 1-3-1993 certain papers were delivered to the Office of the Government Pleader. However, as the records were incomplete the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court addressed a letter to the Revenue Department. Thereafter the Officer of the Office of the Dy. Collector came to High Court on 20-7-1994 with certain details. But as still the details were incomplete, the Office of the Government Pleader again requested the concerned department to send the complete details and ultimately in the month of February 1995 all the details were received by the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court and thereafter the writ petition is prepared and filed before this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner, therefore, requests this Hon'ble Court to condone the delay, if any, in filing the writ petition in this behalf." The aforesaid explanation in para 6 of the petition is very general without furnishing particulars as to what delay occurred where. On the plain perusal of para 6 of the petition, it could safely be concluded that there was no sufficient explanation or reasonable cause for inordinate delay of more that 4 years and 7 months in filing the petition after the passing of the impugned order by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Responsible officers dealing with this file in the concerned Departments and the office of the Collector have also not filed affidavits. The affidavit filed by one Under Secretary of the Revenue Department is also too general and vague. The grounds stated for condonation of delay in filing this petition late after 4 years and 7 months is not acceptable and sustainable. It does not constitute a reasonable and sufficient cause. Therefore, the petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches and the reason for such an inordinate delay is not excusable and sufficient. There is a definite purpose and policy in evolution of the doctrine of delay and laches in filing substantive petition under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India.