Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Learned AGP thereafter invited this Court s attention to to the observation of this Court in respect of purport of Sections 38 and 41 of the Ceiling Act and submitted that in case of ASHWINKUMAR NEE PANKAJBHAI GORDHANBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT, reported in 2009 (1) GLR 79, wherein, this Court has held that though the revision is filed within the parameter prescribed but the Tribunal s power to pass order is to be understood from the language of section 41 itself, which is said to be permitted the Tribunal to pass appropriate order, that may be deemed fit by the Tribunal and Tribunal is not restricted by the parameters of Section 38 itself.

This brings the Court to consider the next two grounds, which have been alleged for assailing the order of Tribunal namely, the lack of jurisdiction on the part of Tribunal. It has the jurisdiction in rendering the order and assumes jurisdiction, when it did not have any time bar revision application, the Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal could not be said to have any jurisdiction to go beyond the parameters mentioned in the Section 38 of the Act in as much as the decision of the Apex Court in respect of Sita Ram Bhau Patil (supra) is unequivocally clear on the aspect of exercise of jurisdiction as Section 76 is in paramateria with Section 38 and Section 41 of the Ceiling Act is also parimateria with Section 78 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, meaning thereby, the Supreme Court s pronouncement in respect of power of the Tribunal will have to be borne in mind while examining the time barred question, while in instant case, the recording of the finding by the Deputy Collector has summarized in para-4 of the petition, which deserve to be reproduced in order to appreciate the purport and finding recorded by the Deputy Collector, which reads as under: