Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 1.8.1996, the appellant had filed Ceiling Appeal No.
TEN.BA/404/91 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal as provided under Section 38 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1961.
Reference to all those proceedings may number be necessary for the disposal of this appeal.
8064 of 1993, along with an application for leave to appeal being MCA No.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.6.1993, the legal heirs of Gelabhai along with others filed a writ petition before the High Court in Special Civil Application No.
The High Court by its order dated 4.4.1996 dismissed the Writ Petition.
It is the case of the applicant that after the demise of the wives of the declarant, the General Power of Attorney holder had number participated in the pending proceedings before the High Court.
892 of 2006 and also an application for companydonation of delay in filing the appeal.
It is apparent that even the State Government was number aware of the order dated 4.4.1996 passed by the High Court.
was ordered to be excluded from the holding of Gelabhai and the matter was remanded back to the Mamlatdar for declaration of net area of surplus land and further a direction was issued to the Mamlatdar to give an opportunity to the declarant landholders to exercise their option regarding selection of the surplus land to be surrendered and then to take possession of the surplus land.
1/90 91 before the Deputy Collector, Dhangdhra Sub Division, Dhangdhra.
The appellant who claims to be the beneficiary under the Will, said to have been executed by both the wives of the original declarant, filed Letters Patent Appeal, inter alia, challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge in SCA No.
It only demonstrates that even the respondents were number aware of the dismissal of the writ petition, though they were parties in the writ petition.
8064 of 1993.
The original declarant Gelabhai Bhagwanbhai expired on 17.1.1979, leaving behind his two wives Smt.
Pursuant to the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal dated 21.1.1986 in Revision Application TEN BA No.
Therefore, the assertion made, that they came to know the dismissal of the writ petition filed by General Power of Attorney holder, only when they were served with numberice dated 30.1.2006 under Rule 10 of the Ceiling Rules by the office of Mamlatdar.
The Mamlatdar also recognized that the heirs of the original declarant were entitled to hold the highest ceiling of one unit of land.
The Tribunal vide its order dated 14.6.1993, partly allowed the revision application by holding that except transfer in respect of Sy.
806 of 1993.
The order passed under the Act was the subject matter of several rounds of litigations before various forums under the Act.
The appellants and others were served with a numberice dated 30.10.2006, under Rule 10 of the Ceiling Rules by the office of the Mamlatdar, whereby they were informed that they were in possession of some lands which had been declared surplus land under the Ceiling Act in the hands of Gelabhai and they were directed, apart from others, to submit any objections or suggestions with regard to the surplus lands within one month from the receipt of the numberice to select such part or such parts which they wish to companytinue to possess and to submit the details of the land selected within one month.
The answer to this issue is number a vexed issue, since, firstly, appellant was number a party to the proceedings before the High Court number was aware of the proceedings pending before the High Court, since the affairs of litigation of the ceiling proceedings of the lands in question was taken care of by the General Power Attorney holders of the wives of the original owner of the lands.
As a result of such order, the land measuring 5 Acres 28 3/4 Gs.,
During his life time, he had filed an application on 27.9.1976, under Section 8 of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act before the companypetent authority under the Act.
During the pendency of these proceedings, the original declarant, Gelabhai expired on 17.1.1979, leaving behind his two wives.
832 of 2006, wherein and whereunder, the application for grant of leave to prefer Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed, firstly, on the ground that the wives of the original declarant had numberright, title or interest over the land and, therefore, the Will executed by them in favour of the appellant would number give him any right in the land, secondly, on the ground of delay and latches in filing the appeal nearly after ten years from the date of the judgment and order passed in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge.
8064 of 1993 before the learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court challenging the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Appellate Tribunal.
The Deputy Collector rejected the Ceiling Appeal vide order dated 30.3.1991, holding that the order of the Mamlatdar declaring land measuring 35 Acres 04 Gunthas to be surplus, was in companysonance with the provisions of the Act.
It has also companye on record, that, during their life time, they had executed a Will in favour of their nephew Sri Sindhav Bhavanbhai Laxmanbhai, and they were number aware of the execution of the Will in their favour till the year 2002 and, therefore, they companyld number take possession of the lands in question till 2002.
Since they did number have their own sons and daughters, they had executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Parambhai Bhagwanbhai and others, number only to manage the affairs of vast extent of agricultural lands, and also several litigations pending before various forums including the authorities under the Land Ceiling Act.
After the death of Gelabhai, the property vested with the wives.
Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.3.1991, the legal heirs of the original applicant had filed Revision Application No.
This case has a chequered history.
276 A.5 Gs.
The first issue is, whether there was any delay in filing the application for grant of leave to prefer Letters Patent Appeal in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Samuben and Smt.
It is also brought on record the letter from the office of Mamlatdar dated 29.9.2004, addressed to the Power of Attorney holder of the legal heirs of Gelabhai to inform them the status of the proceedings pending before the High Court.
If this was the state of affairs, what to say about the applicant who was number even a party to any of the proceedings either before the Revenue authorities or before the High Court.
He had numbersons or daughters.
The learned companynsel for the respondent justifies the impugned order passed by the High Court.
Puriben expired on 18.6.1991 and 7.7.2000 respectively, but during their life time, they had executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Parmabhai Bhagwanbhai, resident of Village Adariyana, Taluka Dasada, District Surendranagar, Gujarat.
1254 of 1984, the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunals, Patdi, by his order dated 1st day of August, 1986, declared that the legal heirs of the original declarant are entitled to hold 54.00 Acres of unirrigated lands out of the total extent of 89.04 Acres and the excess lands of nearly 35.04 Acres is to be treated surplus land and requires to be surrendered to the State Government from the date of the order free from all encumbrances, however, subject to provisions of Section 21 2 and Section 19 and Chapter 8 of Land Ceiling Act.
8064 of 1993 dated 4.4.1996.
892 of 2006 in Letters Patent Appeal No.
Puriben who had inherited the property of the declarant.
8064 of 1993 dated 04.04.1996.
We have heard Sri L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Smt.
The applicant appellant within a reasonable period thereafter has taken steps to file Letter Patents appeal accompanied by an application for grant leave to file the appeal and also an application for companydonation of delay in filing the appeal.
The two widows of Gelabhai, Smt.
They had also filed SCA No.
Suffice to numberice the events and the orders passed by the authorities under Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 and the High Court on or after the year 1986.
Samuben and Smt.
The Power Attorney holder by his letter dated 11.10.2004, informed the Mamlatdar that with the demise of both the legal heirs of Gelabhai, he had ceased to be their Power Attorney holder and had numberhing to do with the dispute pending before various forums.
Both the widows before their demise had also executed a Will in favour of their nephew, Sri Sindhav Bhavanbhai Laxmanbhai, who is the appellant in this appeal.
The facts which are number in dispute and which cannot be disputed would reveal that the Power of Attorney holders were prosecuting the lis before various forums diligently.
We do number propose to go into the question on the merits of the main appeal, in view of the companyrse, we propose to adopt while disposing of this appeal, which is primarily against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court rejecting the application filed for leave to appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA No.
The office of the Mamlatdar addressed a letter dated 29.9.2004 to the Power Attorney holder of legal heirs of the deceased Gelabhai and requested him to inform the latest status of Special Civil Application No.
Sri Gelabhai Bhagwanbhai hereinafter referred to as Gelabhai , resident of Village Adariyana, Taluka Dasada, District Surenderanagar, Gujarat, was an agriculturist and was owning large extent of agricultural lands at Adariyana Village.
L. Dattu,J. L.P C No.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of Gujarat High Court dated 17.4.2006 in MCA No.
11281 of 2006 Leave granted.
