Gujarat High Court
Dodsal vs State on 18 January, 2010
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/887/2009 5/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 887 of 2009
=========================================================
DODSAL
ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MRS
VD NANAVATI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
DS
AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 18/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
By way of this petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 5.9.2008 passed by the State of Gujarat Revisional Authority i.e. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat on an application for condonation of delay in preferring Revision Application under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code by which, the Revisional Authority rejected the said application of the petitioner to condone the delay of 14 years in preferring the said revision application challenging the order passed by the Taluka Development Officer (T.D.O.) dated 30th October, 1993 in cancelling the N.A. Use permission.
One Dodsal Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd. was granted N.A. Use permission with respect to the lands in question situated at Nabipur, Tal. Bharuch, in the year 1975, the same was subject to certain terms and conditions inclusive of the condition that it was required to put-up the construction and use it for the purpose for which the permission was granted within a period of 3 (three) years. It appears that till 1991, the said land was not used for the purpose for which the N.A. Use permission was granted and therefore, proceedings were initiated by the T.D.O. by issuing show cause notice dated 3.7.1991 and the petitioner was called upon to show cause why the N.A. Use permission should not be cancelled as it was found that the said Company had not put the land to N.A. Use as per the conditions of the order granting N.A. Use permission. That the T.D.O. passed an order dated 18th March, 1992, cancelling the N.A. Permission granted to the petitioner for the lands in question. It appears that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the T.D.O. in cancelling the N.A. Use permission, the said company preferred the Appeal being Appeal No.78/1992 before the Deputy Collector, Bharuch under Section 273 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. That thereafter, Deputy Collector by order dated 19th March, 1993 quashed and set aside the order dated 18th March, 1992 and remanded the matter to the T.D.O. to reconsider the matter on merits after taking into consideration provisions of the law and relevant Government Resolutions. That thereafter, on remand, the T.D.O. passed an order dated 30th October, 1993 again cancelling the N.A. Use permission. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 30th October, 1993 passed by the T.D.O. cancelling the N.A. Use permission, petitioner preferred revision application (without exhausting the remedy of appeal) before the State Government i.e. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat. That there was a delay of 14 years in preferring the revision application, therefore, application to condone the delay for 14 years has submitted by the petitioner. Considering the same and the averments in the application to condone the delay and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, by impugned order dated 12th September, 2008, the Revisional Authority did not condone the delay by observing that no cause has been submitted in support of the prayer to condone the delay and whatever has been submitted by the petitioner is on merits of the order. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Revisional Authority in not condoning the delay in preferring the Revision Application, petitioner has preferred the present special civil application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Shri Devang Nanavati, learned advocate appeaing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that Revisional Authority has materially erred in not condoning the delay in preferring the revision application challenging the order passed by the respondent No.2 cancelling the N.A Use permission. Shri Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also addressed to the Court on merits of the order passed by the T.D.O. which was impugned before the Revisional Authority. It is vaguely submitted that petitioner came to know about the order passed by the T.D.O dated 30th October, 1993 cancelling the N.A. Use permission somewhere in the year 2007, and therefore also, the delay was required to be condoned. Shri Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case State of Haryana V/s. Chandra Mani and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 1623 has submitted that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the expression sufficient cause should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every days' delay. Therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned order and to condone the delay and to direct the Revisional Authority to decide the Revision Application on merits.
Having heard Shri Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Ms.Mandavia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and learned AGP, Shri Mengdey, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and considering the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority not condoning the delay of 14 years in preferring the Revision Application and considering the averments in the application for condonation of delay, it cannot be said that Revisional Authority has committed an error in not condoning the delay of 14 years in preferring the Revision Application. As rightly observed by the Revisional Authority, no cause, much less, sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner and/or revisionist in application to condone the delay. Except submitting the case on merits, there are no averments explaining the delay of 14 years. Even the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the same. It is submitted that it can be said to be an error in drafting the application to condone the delay. However, the same cannot be accepted. Unless, there are necessary averments in the application, explaining the delay, it cannot be said that it is an error in drafting the application. If the petitioner wanted to condone the huge delay of 14 years, in that case, there was a greater duty upon the petitioner to explain such a huge delay of 14 years by necessary explanation and making out the sufficient cause and to explain the delay of 14 years, which cannot be said to be a small delay.
Under the circumstances, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when there is no cause, much less, sufficient cause shown in explaining the delay of 14 years, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Mani and others (supra) would not be of any assistance to the petitioner. Even considering the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision in absence of any explanation at all to explain the delay of 14 years, no other view can be taken which is taken by the revisional Authority.
It is also required to be noted that even as per the petitioner in the present petition, petitioner came to know about the order passed by the T.D.O. on 13th October, 1993 somewhere in the year 2007. However, the said averments are too vague. How they came to know etc. has not been stated at all. Assuming it is so, still the petitioner preferred the Revision Application in the year 2008 after a period of almost 1 (one) year. Therefore, petitioner has not made out any case to condone the delay of 14 years in preferring the Revision Application.
In view of the above, there is no substance in the present petition which deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
(M.R.SHAH, J.) (ashish) Top