Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 305 (GUJ)

MONGHIBEN PUNJABHAI RATHOD v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2021-04-01

ASHUTOSH J.SHASTRI

body2021
ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking the following reliefs :“ 13(A) Be pleased to admit and allow this Special Civil Application; (B) Be pleased to issue the writ of certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the learned Secretary, Revenue Department, (Dispute), Ahmedabad in Revision Application no. MVV/JMN/SNR/ 37 of 2017 at AnnexureA in the interest of justice. (C ) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the order, impugned order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the learned Secretary, Revenue Department (Dispute), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. MVV/JMN/SNR/ 37 of 2017 at AnnexureA in the interest of justice. (D) Be pleased to grant such other and further relief that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the father of the petitioners was alloted land in question in Village Santhva, way back in the year 1964 and by virtue of such allotment, the father was expected to pay revenue to the extent of 6 pattas. It is submitted that to the unfortunate of the petitioners, the father appears to have committed default in making such payment. As a result of this, having come to know about this land and the action by the respondent authority, the petitioners have filed an application before the Collector, Surendrangar by way of Land Dispute Case No. 54/201415. The said proceedings were examined by the Collector, District Surendranagar, whereby the appeal came to be rejected mainly on the ground that there is gross delay in approaching the authority. It has been noted by the Collector that almost after a period of 4950 years, such delay proceedings have been submitted to challenge the order of the Deputy Collector passed way back in the year 1966. According to the petitioners, the revisional authority also confirmed the order passed by the Collector mainly on the same ground and rejected Revision Application no. 37/2017 vide order dated 16.03.2018 and it is these orders concurrent in nature are made the subject matter of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. According to the petitioners, the revisional authority also confirmed the order passed by the Collector mainly on the same ground and rejected Revision Application no. 37/2017 vide order dated 16.03.2018 and it is these orders concurrent in nature are made the subject matter of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. M. B. Rana, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that these petitioners are the rustic villagers, are not aware of the proceedings minutely and as and when such fact came within the knowledge of the petitioners have rushed in time. They have approached the Collector for assailing the order and, therefore, when the appeal is to be considered, the authority is expected to apply the principle that the said delay is to be considered from the date of the knowledge and as such, both the authorities have concurrently held against the petitioners substantially on the ground that there is a gross delay of 49 years. Learned advocate Mr. Rana has submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the said patta amount if left out by the father and, therefore, due consideration be given to the case of the petitioners. It is submitted that the father unfortunately had not taken any steps either to pay patta amount or request for extension of time and as such, the mistake bona fide in nature by the villagers may not be utilized as lever to discard the legitimate claim of the petitioners. It is submitted that both the authorities have concurrently held that there is a gross delay and as such, though several decisions have been relied upon, the same have not been dealt with in proper perspective and rather adopted the casual way to dispose of the petition. That being the position, learned advocate Mr. Rana has requested to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. No other submissions have been made. 4. As against this on an advance copy Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent – State, has vehemently contended that the petition is meritless and the plea of innocence or ignorance cannot be accepted by the Court, especially, when the petitioners themselves have set tight over the said land for more than 4950 years. As against this on an advance copy Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent – State, has vehemently contended that the petition is meritless and the plea of innocence or ignorance cannot be accepted by the Court, especially, when the petitioners themselves have set tight over the said land for more than 4950 years. It is submitted that the delay consideration while exercising revenue jurisdiction are equally applicable to the private litigants and cannot be applied only for the purpose of government authorities who are exercising the powers after some unreasonable period and as such, has requested that there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 4.1. Apart from that Mr. Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader has drawn attention of this Court that due consideration has been given to the plea of the petitioners by the authorities and a concurrent conclusion is arrived at that no case is made out even to explain the gross delay of 4950 years and as such, the authorities have rightly rejected the request of the petitioners. It has been submitted that there might be a situation where the petitioners may be in possession, but that would not allow the petitioners to resume the land which as already been surrendered to the government and mutated in the name of the Government way back in the year 1966. Hence, no case is made out by the petitioners. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, exfacie it appears that there is unexplained delay of almost 49-50 years in assailing the order by way of appeal and as such, in absence of any cogent reasons it is not proper on the part of the authority to condone the delay as a matter of right or in a casual way. The authorities are under an obligation to observe the principle laid down in a well known case of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha reported in 1969 AIR 1297, and, therefore, in absence of any such material explanation, this Court is not inclined to consider the request. 5.1. The authorities are under an obligation to observe the principle laid down in a well known case of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha reported in 1969 AIR 1297, and, therefore, in absence of any such material explanation, this Court is not inclined to consider the request. 5.1. It appears from the record that the payment is made by the father years back, but from the record it does not appear that any steps have been taken during this period to get the land mutated in the name of the petitioners, somuchso that the present petitioners who are inheriting the land in question from the father have also set tight for a pretty long period for 4950 years and such delay is also not explained and, therefore, it appears to this Court that concurrently the authorities below have rightly come to the conclusion that the grievance is not entertainable after this much period of time. 5.2. Additionally, it appears to the Court that the authorities have passed the order after due application of mind and after giving relevant reasons as to why the request is not acceded to and, therefore, it is not the case that any perversity is reflecting from the order and that being the position, in a causal manner, extra ordinary jurisdiction cannot be exercised by this Court to overturn the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the authorities which are well within the scope of their authority. Hence, no case is made out by the petitioners. 5.3. In addition to this, it appears to this Court that the principle of delay and laches is not only meant for authorities discretion, but it is equally applicable to private litigant who is coming forward to claim any right and as such, it is not possible to accept any of the contentions raised by the petitioner to entertain the petition. About the grievance which is set at rest way back in the year 1966, the observations of the Apex Court of the recent time on the issue are very relevant and in the case of Telangana Housing Board v. Azamunnisa Begum (Died) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. About the grievance which is set at rest way back in the year 1966, the observations of the Apex Court of the recent time on the issue are very relevant and in the case of Telangana Housing Board v. Azamunnisa Begum (Died) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 346 it case has considered the principle laid down in the case of Raghav Natha (supra)and since this Court has considered the same, the relevant observations contained in para 59 and 60 are reproduced hereinafter:“ 59. It is now well settled that where no timelimit is specified, whatever is required to be done should be within a reasonable period. In Collector v. P. Mangamma, it was held in paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows: 5. “A reasonable period would depend upon the factual circumstances of the case concerned. There cannot be any empirical formula to determine that question. The court/authority considering the question whether the period is reasonable or not has to take into account the surrounding circumstances and relevant factors to decide that question. 6. In State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha8 it was observed that when even no period of limitation was prescribed, the power is to be exercised within a reasonable time and the limit of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which was sought to be varied.........”. Reasonable, being a relative term is essentially what is rational according to the dictates of reason and not excessive or immoderate on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.” 60. Similarly, in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao 9 the exercise of revisional jurisdiction where no timelimit is specified was considered and it was held in paragraph 31 of the Report as follows: “31. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of thirdparty rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of thirdparty rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority.” 6. In view of the aforesaid peculiar background of fact, this Court is of the clear opinion that no case is made out by the petitioners to call for any interference in concurrent findings of fact. The scope of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is well defined by the catena of decisions of the Apex Court and as such, keeping in view one of such decision in the case of Sameer Suresh Gupta Through Holder v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal reported in (2013) 9 SCC 374 ,, this Court is not inclined to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction. The petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.