RAMBHAI BHAILALBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 14.8.98 passed in Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 225/98 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Being aggrieved by an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Radhanpur, dated 15.7.93 passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 2/93, the petitioner had filed a revision application before the tribunal on 10.6.98. As the said revision application was filed after about 5 years, on the ground of delay the said revision application was rejected by the impugned order dated 14.8.98. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this court.

(2.) The facts in a nutshell with regard to the case are as under:-

(3.) The Mamlatdar and ALT (Ceiling), Palanpur had decided in Ceiling Case No. 3/87 (remand) that the petitioner, alongwith his wife was holding 97 acres and 30 gunthas of land. According to the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner was holding excess land and therefore it was declared by the said order that the petitioner was holding surplus land to the extent of 52 acres and 30 gunthas. The said order was passed in pursuance of a remand order passed by the Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 1558/84 dated 25.8.86 and Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 1339/87 dated 3.7.87. The said order of the Mamlatdar & ALT (Ceiling) was passed at the beginning of the second round of this litigation. Before coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was having surplus land, the Mamlatdar and ALT had issued several notices to the present petitioner and his wife Smt. Kamlaben Rambhai Patel. It appears that in spite of issuance of five notices upon the petitioner and his wife, as the petitioner or his wife had neither responded to the said notices nor had remained present, the concerned Deputy Mamlatdar had personally served another notice to the petitioner and his wife before initiation of the proceedings under the Act by the Mamlatdar and ALT (Ceiling), Palanpur. I am referring to the above facts to show that the petitioner and his wife were absolutely negligent and careless right from the beginning with regard to the proceedings which were initiated under the provisions of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.3.88 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT (Ceiling), the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Radhanpur being Ceiling Appeal No. 2/93. The said appeal was rejected on 15.7.1993 and being aggrieved by the order passed in the appeal, the petitioner had filed the revision application before the Tribunal on 10.6.1998 which was ultimately rejected by an order dated 14.8.98, which is the subject-matter of the present petition.