A.J.Desai, J
1 By way of present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the original petitioner has challenged the oral order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which, request made by the petitioner to quash and set aside the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the original authority of Revenue Department under the Revenue Laws, by which the revision application preferred by the present petitioner came to be dismissed mainly on two grounds that the revision has been filed after a period of 68 years, as well as no order impugned in the revision application was produced.
2 It is the case of the appellant – petitioner that the land in question was in possession of the father of the petitioner and the same was being cultivated for years together. The petitioner came to know that by an order dated 15.01.1952 and 15.12.1951, the District Collector, Ahmedabad, has forfeited the land for breach of the conditions. The petitioner came to know about this only when the respondent authorities came to take possession of the property. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the order which was passed way back in the year 1951 -52. However, the respondent authorities replied that copies of the orders impugned are not available.
3 It is the case of the appellant-petitioner, that they are in possession of the properties till today. In support of his submission, the petitioner has produced the panchnama prepared in the year 2019.
4 Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Dhruvik Patel, appearing for the appellant would submit that since the order is not available on record, the authority could have granted the opportunity of hearing about challenge to the order which was passed in the year 1951. Mr.Patel, learned counsel, would submit that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is in possession of the property. He, therefore, would submit that the appeal be admitted and the authority be directed to consider the case of the appellant.
5 We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused the impugned order which was impugned before the learned Single Judge and the order impugned in the present appeal passed by the learned Single Judge.
6 It is undisputed that by two orders in the year 1951 - 1952, the District Collector, Ahmedabad, had confiscated the land of the petitioner. The said orders were never challenged. Repeated submissions made before this Court is also on the line of arguments advanced before the learned Single Judge which has been dealt by the learned Single Judge with which we are in complete agreement.
We are in agreement with the observations made in paragraphs 7 to 16 of the oral dated 22.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge. The same are hereby reproduced:
“7. The issue revolves around the survey no.903 which, according to the petitioner, belonged to Gangla Trikam, the father of the petitioner. It appears that the land was allotted to him on the new tenure basis; however, owing to non-payment of the revenue, order dated 12.08.1941 was passed with respect to both the survey nos.903 and 926 and were forfeited by the State Government, which is clear from entry no.1389. The name of the khatedar came to be deleted and the entry was certified on 08.11.1941. It appears from the revenue record that thereafter, the land was granted to one Mangal Kala for a period of three years for the purpose of cultivation by the State Government which continued till the year 1946-1947. Somewhere in the year 1951, the Collector had passed an order dated 15. 12.1951, followed by the order dated 15.01.1952 by the Mamlatdar and the lands were deleted from the head of government waste land and were designated as a gauchar land. Entry no.1701 was posted in the revenue record and was certified. After mutation of the entry no.1701, entry no.1935 dated 28.07.1953 was posted in the revenue record by which, possession of the land bearing survey no.903 was handed over to the panchayat and it had accepted the possession. Entry no.1935 was certified on 29.11.1953. Nothing has been placed on record that the father of the petitioner had challenged the order of the year 1951 by which, the land was forfeited in the State Government and thereafter, designation of the land as a gauchar land.
8. Moreover, the father of the petitioner passed away in the year 1977, till that date, he had not challenged any of the orders of the State Government, regarding forfeiture of the land or designation of the land as a gauchar land. It emerges from the record that the petitioner is one of the heirs of Gangla Trikam Chamar; however, he appears to have attained majority somewhere in the year 1980. It is only for the first time, in the year 2017, that the application was made to the office of the Hon’ble the Chief Minister, seeking regrant of the land. In paragraph 1 of the said application, the petitioner has stated about the order passed by the Mamlatdar refusing the request of the petitioner for grant of land. Paragraph 1 further proceeds wherein, the petitioner himself has stated that he is a cobbler; living below poverty line and also the beneficiary of the B.P.L. card. The next paragraph in the said application states that the lands bearing survey nos.903 and 926 are of his ancestors, request has been made for allotment of the lands, but have not been allotted. With these two grounds, the application was filed in the year 2017.
9. Thereafter, applications were also filed before the revenue department and to the Hon’ble Minister, Social Justice & Empowerment Department. In none of the applications filed before the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Hon’ble Minister, Social Justice & Empowerment Department so also, the revenue department, it is the case of the petitioner that he had been cultivating the land in question or is in possession. It is the case of the petitioner that since no reply was received, the petitioner obtained the advice of the learned advocate and the petitioner was advised that he should challenge the orders dated 15.12.1951 and 15.01.1952 by filing the revision application and therefore, the petitioner had approached the learned Secretary under the provisions of Section 211 of the Code.
10. Along with the revision application, the petitioner had also filed an application, seeking condonation of delay. The application contains various averments. Paragraph 1 provides the details of the orders passed in the year 1941, 1951 and 1952. In paragraph 2, the petitioner has averred that the land is being cultivated by the petitioner and it had never remained as the waste land. It is also the case of the petitioner that from the year 1951-1952 to 1967-1968, the names of the ancestors of the petitioner have continued. The application further proceeds with the reference of the application to the office of the Hon’ble the Chief Minister as well as the Hon’ble Minister, Social Justice & Empowerment Department as well as the steps taken by the office of the Collector, Assistant Collector and Prant Officer. Paragraph 4 deals with the provisions of Sections 56 and 57 of the Code. Paragraph 5 is on the merits to the effect that no order has been passed, designating the land as a gauchar land, so far as survey no.926 is concerned. Paragraph 5 also contains the challenge to the designation of the land bearing survey no.903 as a gauchar land. paragraph 6, ultimately suggests that the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 15.12.1951 and 15.01.1952.
11. Paragraph 7 would be relevant for the purpose of deciding grievance of the petitioner about the violation of the principles of natural justice. It states that the petitioner learnt about the order dated
15. 12.1951 only in the year 2017, upon verification of the revenue record. Further, it suggests that the petitioner is illiterate and therefore, had preferred an application before the State Government at the highest level; however, since no steps were taken, another application was filed and upon receiving the legal advise, that the present application has been filed. It is also the stand of the petitioner that for filing an application under Section 211 of the Code, there is no limitation provided. It also suggests that the petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste category and was unaware about the legal intricacies and therefore, delay has occurred. The explanation further proceeds that the delay of 68years is owing to the ignorance of law on the part of the petitioner and therefore, the delay, which has caused, deserves to be condoned. Except this, neither in the revision application nor in the application seeking condonation of delay, any strong grounds have been raised by the petitioner as to why, there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in not approaching the learned Secretary, challenging the orders dated 15.12.1951 and 15. 01.1952 passed by the Collector and the Mamlatdar respectively.
12. Though, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been cultivating the land; but, as has been rightly pointed out by Mr.J.K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader from the 7/12 forms produced on record, that the land is government waste land and there is not a whisper about the cultivation by the petitioner or for that matter, name of the father of the petitioner in the revenue records of the previous years. Adverting to the revenue record and as discussed hereinabove, it is not in dispute that in the year 1941, the father of the petitioner failed to pay the revenue and, as a result whereof, the order dated 12.08.1941 was passed, forfeiting the land in the State Government, followed by entry no.1389 dated 29.10.1941. Thereafter, the land was deleted from the head of the government waste land and was designated as a gauchar land by passing the aforesaid two orders by the Collector and the Mamlatdar. Entry no.1701 was posted in the revenue record and was certified on 09.10.1952. Neither the said orders nor the entry, have ever been challenged by the father of the petitioner, followed by the further order in the year 1953 by which, possession of the land was handed over to the gram panchayat.
13. This Court is mindful of the fact that the learned Secretary has rejected the application only on the ground of delay; however, since the learned advocate for the petitioner has touched the merits of the matter, the Court proposes to deal with the said contention, as well. Perceptibly, the said orders were never challenged by the father of the petitioner and the petitioner, though attained majority somewhere in the year 1980, had, for the first time, submitted an application in the year 2017 before the State Government at the highest level. The explanation, which has been offered in the application seeking condonation of delay, in the opinion of this Court, would not justify the gross delay of 68 years. It is not that the petitioner was not offered any opportunity. The petitioner had placed on record all the available documents; however, the fact remains that the explanation of 68 years has remained unanswered. The explanation, as discussed hereinabove, in the opinion of this Court, lacks merits.
14. Even in the writ petition, except stating that the authorities ought to have called upon the petitioner to submit proper and justifiable reason, there is nothing on record to substantiate as to how, by not calling upon the petitioner, the petitioner has been prejudiced inasmuch, the only ground, which has been set out in the application for condonation of delay, is that the petitioner was not aware and it came to knowledge of the petitioner only in the year 2017. Initially, the petitioner, had chosen not to place it on record any documents which, was subsequently done on being adjournment extended. The petitioner, was given opportunity before this Court, so as to justify the delay; however, there is nothing placed on record to convince this Court that by not offering an opportunity by the learned Secretary, grave prejudice has been caused to him.
15. It is difficult to fathom that if the person is cultivating the land from the year 1951-1952 or the ancestors of the petitioner were cultivating the land, at least, there would have been some documents in support of such cultivation. In the present case, there is not a semblance of evidence, namely, in the form of payment of revenue receipts, invoices of selling and purchasing the crops; equipment installed or being used for cultivation etc. Therefore, even in absence of any prejudice pointed out by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no error can be said to have been committed by the learned Secretary in passing the order dated 25.11.2020, rejecting the revision application, inter alia, on the ground that there is a delay of 68 years.
16. While concluding, this Court would like to observe that the policies formulated by the State Government, have a laudable object behind it, but unfortunately, the policies, are being misused by unscrupulous element, taking undue advantage by agitating or re-agitating issues which, otherwise would not be available to be made grievance against. Abandoning the cause, though the ancestors don’t take any steps, it has now become a trend that after their death and waking up from slumber, may be after two to three decades, the heirs realise the mistake of abandoning the cause and attempts are being put to revive the issue or cause which otherwise has been given a quietus by the revenue authorities by passing orders. While challenging or seeking revival, frivolous grounds are raised and by any how, the heirs or the third parties, would like to agitate the issue, keeping the administration busy with such frivolous issues to be dealt with. This is not only affecting administration, but genuine cases are also being not paid attention. Either with explanation or without explanation, party is expected to be vigilant of his right, as law helps vigilant. If a party is not concerned or takes any steps in furtherance of his or her right, that right is lost by passage of time and so is the remedy.”
7 We do not fine any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
