Amrutlal @ Maheshbhai Fulshankar ... vs State Of Gujarat

      C/SCA/1238/2023                              ORDER DATED: 30/01/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1238 of 2023
==========================================================
     AMRUTLAL @ MAHESHBHAI FULSHANKAR TRIVEDI SINCE DECD.
                        THROUGH LHS
                            Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAY R SHAH(8428) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
MR JINESH H KAPADIA(5601) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
 for the Respondent(s) No. 10,11,12,13,14,15,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR JAYNEEL S. PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
                  Date : 30/01/2023
                   ORAL ORDER

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayer :-

"7. B. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the Ld Member, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in TEN /BA/292/2014 and further may be please to condone the delay in preferring the Revision application, before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and further be please to remand back the case to, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad to decide it on merits in the interest of justice"

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under :-

2.1 It is the case of the petitioners that, their ancestors namely Fulshankar Dalsukhram Trivedi was the original owner of the land bearing Survey / Block No. 675/1 situated at Naroda, Ahmedabad.

2.2 It is further the case of the petitioners that, the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Mamlatdar vide his order dated Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 31 20:46:48 IST 2023 C/SCA/1238/2023 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2023 15.02.1975 passed in Ganot Case No.443 / 1975 (Old case no 101/73) has stated only one person name - Bhogaji Mohanji as a tenant.

2.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the Mamlatdar, the petitioners preferred Ganot Appeal No.23 of 2012 along with the delay condonation application before the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, which came to be rejected by the order dated 12.10.2012 mainly on the ground that it is barred by the law of limitation.

2.4 Thereafter, the present petitioners preferred Revision Application No.TEN/BA/292/2014 along with the delay condonation application before the GRT, Ahmedabad, which came to be rejected only on the ground of delay without considering their case.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Shah, has submitted that the father of the petitioners was not feeling well, hence, there has been delay in filing the revision application before the Tribunal. It is submitted that the Tribunal has illegally observed and rejected the revision application filed by the petitioners by observing that there has been delay and the application is barred by limitation. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order may be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kanara, has submitted that it is a well settled proposition of law that the authorities cannot exercise any powers after considerable delay since in the present case, the order dated Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 31 20:46:48 IST 2023 C/SCA/1238/2023 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2023 15.02.1975 passed by the Mamlatdar has been questioned by the petitioners before the Deputy Collector in the year 2012 by filing Ganot Appeal No.23 of 2012 i.e. after a period of 36 years, hence the impugned order may not be set aside. Reliance is also placed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kanara, on the judgment of this Court dated 24.02.2005 in the case of Govabhai Momanbhai Bharwad Vs. State of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No.9193 of 2013 and has submitted that this petition may not be entertained only on the ground of delay.

5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Govabhai Momanbhai Bharwad (supra), has observed thus : -

"9. It is noteworthy that the proceedings of breach of condition were initiated by the Deputy Collector, which culminated into the order of confiscation of the land vide order dated 12.11.1986. It is an admitted position that the same came to be challenged before the Collector under Section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in the year 2005. It is, therefore, an admitted position that the said appeal was filed after 21 years and in view of the same, the contentions raised by the petitioner that he is illiterate, and therefore, he could not file the same in time, is not believable. As asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner even by way of draft amendment that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question is believed, the conduct of the petitioner is such that the same would not entitle him for any relief(s) after a long lapse of 21 years. Principles annunciated by the Apex Court in the case of The State of Gujarat Vs. Raghav Natha (supra), which is in fact relied upon by the petitioner would be applicable to the petitioner himself. No explanation has been given for challenging the order passed by Deputy Collector after 21 years."

C/SCA/1238/2023 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2023

7. It is well settled proposition of law that the respondent authorities cannot exercise tehir powers beyond a certain period and in the present case, it is noticed that the petitioners have assailed the order dated 15.02.1975 passed by the Mamlatdar in Ganot Case No.443 of 1975 by filing a Ganot Appeal No.23 of 2012 before the Deputy Collector. Thus, after a period of 36 years, the Deputy Collector or any authority cannot exercise the powers by setting aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar.

8. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is rejected summarily.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) MB/ 37 Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 31 20:46:48 IST 2023