NAGINDAS NAROTTAMDAS SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased Nagindas Narottamdas Shah have filed the present petition challenging the order dated 15.06.2015 passed by Additional Secretary, Revenue (Appeals), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the S.S.R.D.') in Revision Application No. 5 of 2007, whereby the S.S.R.D. has confirmed the order dated 03.10.2006 passed by District Collector, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. 9 of 2006 and the order dated 01.10.1964 passed by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad in respect of the Survey No. 1202/1 and 1221 of Village Ognaj, Taluka Daskroi (hereinafter referred to as 'the said lands').

(2.) As per the case of the petitioners, their forefathers were holding lands in question as Inami land as reflected in the entry No. 175 dated 29.10.1956. The Deputy Collector vide the order dated 24.08.1964 recorded that the lands in question having been found to be cultivated by forefathers of the private respondents herein, there was a breach of condition. Thereafter, the said lands were forfeited in favour of the State Government. The petitioners thereafter being aggrieved by the said order, had preferred an Appeal being No. 9 of 2006 before the District Collector under Section 203 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code ((hereinafter referred to as 'the said Code'), however, the said appeal was dismissed vide the order dated 03.10.2006, against which the Revision Application was preferred before the S.S.R.D., however, the Revision Application also came to be dismissed vide the order dated 15.06.2015 on the ground that the petitioners had preferred the Appeal before the District Collector after a gross delay of about 42 years.

(3.) The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjanwala appearing for the petitioners placing heavy reliance on various decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another versus Mst. Katiji and others, 1987 AIR(SC) 1353, and in the case of M.K. Prasad versus P. Arumugam, 2001 6 SCC 176, submitted that the respondent - S.S.R.D. should have adopted liberal approach in condoning the delay occurred in filing the Appeal before the Collector and should not have dismissed the Revision Application of the petitioners only on the ground that the said Appeal was filed after a gross delay of about 42 years, without examining the merits of the case. He also submitted that this Court in order to do substantial justice to the petitioners, could mould the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, Mr. Sanjanwala has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Others versus Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another, 2000 9 SCC 94. Mr. Sanjanwala replying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Chhotabhai Dahyabhai Thakore versus State of Gujarat and Others, 1997 3 GLR 2016, also submitted that mere mentioning of the words "new tenure" in the revenue records is not sufficient proof of inalienability and impartibility and there must be additional and reliable proof to show that the lands in question were of new tenure. According to him, forefathers of the private respondents were the watchmen looking after the lands in question, and therefore, it could not be said that there was any breach of condition as held by the Deputy Collector in his order dated 24.08.1964.