HEIRS Vs. MAMLATDAR AND AGRICULTURAL LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that one Mir Gulambabakhan was holding the agricultural land and his wives were also holding the agricultural land. The declaration was filed by Mir Gulambabakhan who is now deceased under Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and in the said declaration the agricultural land held by him as well as by his wives were shown as holding. It appears that on the basis of the said declaration, the Mamlatdar and ALT processed the case and as per the order dated 23.12.1982 the land admeasuring 22 acres and 16 gunthas, equivalent non- irrigated land admeasuring 44 acres 32 gunthas was declared as surplus land. The legal heirs of the deceased preferred appeal before the Assistant Collector being Appeal No.99/1983 and in the said Appeal as per the order dated 5/7/1983, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar and ALT. It appears that the Mamlatdar and ALT after remand reconsidered the matter and passed the order on 29/1/1983, whereby the non- irrigated land admeasuring 44- acres and 05 gunthas was declared as surplus land. It appears that the legal heirs of the deceased once again preferred appeal before Dy. Collector against the order of Mamlatdar and the said appeal as per the order dated 30th September, 1983 of the Dy. Collector is dismissed. Legal heirs of the deceased further carried the matter before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by preferring revision and in the said revision the learned Tribunal as per the decision dated 27/12/1989 remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar for verification of the canal certificate and irrigation of the land in presence of the parties to the proceedings. It appears that thereafter the Mamlatdar and ALT once again considered the matter and the Mamlatdar and ALT proceeded for verification of the canal certificate of the petitioners. It has been recorded by the Mamlatdar and ALT that when the concerned Officer was directed to verify the aspects regarding the irrigations of the land in question, the legal heirs of the deceased were informed by the intimation dated 14.6.1990, 27.6.1990, 26.7.1990, 30.7.1990, 3.11.1990 and 12.9.1990 to remain personally present at the time when the verification of the canal certificate was to be made by the Officer concerned, however, it appears that the legal heirs of the deceased who were required to remain present did not remain present and the Officer thereafter proceeded for verification and ultimately it was reported that the certificate is correct after verification. The Mamlatdar further considered that the land was held by the deceased Mir Gulambabakhan and his wife Afzulunnissabegum. It was found by the Mamlatdar that as per the canal certificate, the land admeasuring 35 acres and 10 gunthas is seasonally irrigated and there was no "issue" either son or daughter in the family and the family comprised of husband and two wives, total three members and, therefore, one unit was permitted and the land held by the family of the deceased after conversion in accordance with law was found as 71 acres and 53 gunthas. The retainable land was permitted and the land admeasuring 44 acres and 05 gunthas as per the calculation on the basis of non-irrigated land were declared as surplus land by the order dated 26.11.1990 of the Mamlatdar and ALT.

(2.) It appears that the legal heirs of the deceased were intimated by registered A.D. post regarding the order of the Mamlatdar for declaration of the land as surplus land and they were called upon to hand over the possession of the land which was declared as surplus. It appears that as per the finding recorded by the Dy. Collector in the appeal as well as by the Revenue Tribunal in the revision, the intimation by the Mamlatdar through registered A.D. post was received, however, the appeal was not preferred within the prescribed period of limitation. It appears that after about 90 days, the appeal was preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased, who are as such not legal heirs, but they claimed that the property is bequeathed and gifted to them. The said appeal being appeal No.4/1991 was heard by the Dy. Collector and it was found by the Collector that in spite of the intimation, the appeal was not preferred within the period of limitation and even when the proceedings before the Mamlatdar were conducted; the petitioners did not remain present. It was also recorded that even 'before the Dy. Collector when the appeal was to be heard the lawyer of the petitioners did not remain present. The Dy. Collector found that after intimation through registered A.D. post, as the appeal was not preferred within the statutory period of limitation, the appeal was dismissed. It appears that the petitioner further carried the matter before the Revenue Tribunal by preferring revision No.578/1991. The learned Tribunal also found that the postal A.D. slip regarding intimation to the legal heirs of the deceased was there on record and in spite of the same false representation is made that they came to know about the intimation of the order of the Mamlatdar only on 3.6.1991 and, therefore, the Tribunal found that one who makes false representation in the present proceedings cannot be given benefits of his own wrong and it was further found that the order passed by the Dy. Collector for dismissing the appeal as time barred, was Just and proper: It was also found by the Tribunal that there was no application for condonation of delay and the party who has made false representation cannot be allowed to take undue benefits and, therefore, the prayer for condonation of delay cannot be accepted. Ultimately, the Tribunal has dismissed the revision as per the order dated 25th September, 1992 and it is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by preferring this petition.

(3.) Heard Mr.Sunil Mehta, learned Counsel for Mr.Bukhari for the petitioners and Mr.Prachchhak, learned AGP for the respondent authority.