Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) & 7 on 15 September, 2015
Author: C.L. Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
C/SCA/14567/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14567 of 2015
=========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND REFORMS) & 7....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR NISHA THAKORE, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.D K.PUJ, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 5 6
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 15/09/2015
ORAL ORDER
[1] Draft amend is granted. To be carried out forthwith. Heard Ms. Thakore, learned AGP for the petitioner and Mr. Puj, learned advocate for the caveator - respondent no.5.
[2] Rule returnable on 14.10.2015. Mr. Puj, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no.5. [3] Mr. Puj, learned advocate is heard on the question of grant of interim relief. It appears that respondent no.3 was earlier declared as ordinary tenant in Ganot Case No.103 of 1962 which was decided vide order dated 21.07.1962. There were many such cases decided in the year 1962. Such declaration was with restriction under Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("the Act" for Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Wed Sep 16 02:17:18 IST 2015 C/SCA/14567/2015 ORDER short). It further appears that Deputy Collector then referred the case to the Mamlatdar to decide as to whether respondent no.3 could be said to be permanent tenant. Mamlatdar thereupon considered the case of respondent no.3 and other tenants in other different cases and by common order dated 23.11.1992 held respondent no.3 and other tenants as permanent tenants. However, Mamlatdar observed that such tenants shall not be entitled to the benefit of permanent tenancy and restriction under Section 43 of the Act will continue. Such order of Mamlatdar was taken in suo moto revision by the Deputy Collector after long period of four years. The Deputy Collector found that the order of Mamlatdar was not required to be interfered, however, while passing the final order to withdraw show cause notice issued under Section 76A in exercise of suo moto revisional powers, the Deputy Collector held that restriction under Section 43 (1)(b) of the Act would not apply. It is this order of Deputy Collector which was challenged before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal") by the State by filing Revision Application being TEN.BA.266 / 2001. The Tribunal has observed that order passed by the Deputy Collector is nullity. Further, it is observed that so far as the order made by the Mamlatdar is concerned, since no appeal was preferred against the said order under Section 74 of the Act, it stands as it is. The Tribunal thus, dismissed the Revision Application. State has come with the present petition explaining delay in Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Wed Sep 16 02:17:18 IST 2015 C/SCA/14567/2015 ORDER the petition for late filing of the petition.
[4] Mr. Puj, learned advocate for respondent no.5 raised serious objection against maintainability and entertainability of the petition on the ground of delay and laches.
[5] The Court, however, prima facie, finds that since the interest of State is seriously jeopardized and the order made by the Deputy Collector is found to be nullity by the Tribunal, interim relief as prayed for needs to be granted. It is always open to the private respondents to raise all contentions on merits as also on the aspect of maintainability / entertainability of the petition on the ground of delay as and when the petition is finally heard.
[6] Hence, adinterim relief in terms of paragraph no.11(D) is granted.
(C.L.SONI, J.) satish Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Wed Sep 16 02:17:18 IST 2015