Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Patel Surajmal Gandabhai on 18 September, 2018
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla
Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla
C/SCA/205/2010 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 205 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA Sd/-
=========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ? No
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the judgment ? No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India or any order No
made thereunder ?
==============================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PATEL SURAJMAL GANDABHAI
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN MEHTA, AGP (1) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MS AMRITA AJMERA(5204) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R)(69) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
==============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date : 18/09/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner-State under Articles 14, 19(1)(G), 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the Gujarat Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/205/2010 JUDGMENT Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, for the prayers as prayed for inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed in Revision Application No.TENBA 963/84 by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 05.06.1985 on the ground stated in the memo of petition.
2. Heard learned AGP Shri Manan Mehta for the petitioner-State.
3. Learned AGP Shri Manan Mehta has made feeble attempt to explain about the delay caused in filing the petition challenging the order of 1985 of the tribunal. Moreover, he has also tried to explain that the tribunal has committed an error in remanding the matter instead of 40 acres it has taken excess land as 17 acres. He, therefore, submitted that the matter has been remanded for making selection of land, which the person would like to surrender and therefore, it is erroneous.
4. The submissions have been made by learned AGP, which he has not been able to give any justification for the condonation of delay in filing the petition challenging the order of 1985. As it is reflected from the facts and the impugned order, which has been challenged in the present petition, explanation offered for the delay Page 2 of 5 C/SCA/205/2010 JUDGMENT cannot be termed as 'sufficient cause'. Therefore, while considering the aspect of limitation or explanation offered for delay has to be considered in order to decide whether it would constitute a sufficient cause. Though the law of limitation strictly may not apply to the proceedings or a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. However, same analogy and guidelines would be applicable for the purpose of approach in such matters of considering the aspect of delay. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Maniben Devraj Shah vs Municipal Corporation of Bruhad Mumbai, reported in 2012 (5) SSC 157 has made following observations:
"14. We have considered the respective arguments / submissions and carefully scrutinized the record. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the Court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the Legislature. At the same time, the Courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation.
3. The expression 'sufficient cause' used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serve the ends of justice. No hard and fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay but over the years this Court has advocated that a liberal approach should be adopted in such matters so that substantive rights of the parties are not defeated merely because of delay.
23. What needs to be emphasised is that even though a Page 3 of 5 C/SCA/205/2010 JUDGMENT liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost.
24. What colour the expression 'sufficient cause' would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.
25. In cases involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest."
Similar view has also been discussed in a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors.,reported in 2013 (2) SCC 649.
5. Therefore, even if the Government as an impersonal body has some difficulty or some latitude is required to be given still there has to be sufficient explanation, which could be termed as 'sufficient cause'. Moreover, even on merits, there is no justification by the State to challenge the order for which the matter has been remanded back to the Mamlatdar & ALT. In the impugned Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/205/2010 JUDGMENT order, only the aspect of the ceiling area has been considered and has remanded for the purpose of taking decision at the option of the land holder as to which part he would like to surrender. Therefore, as the matter was remanded and also with some limited consideration, it would not call for any interference in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. In the circumstances, the present petition cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) ABHISHEK Page 5 of 5