Providing "Ambiguous Reasons" Akin To Non-Speaking Order: Gujarat HC Sets Aside Revenue Tribunal's Order Condoning 22-Yrs Delay By State
Lovina B Thakkar
2 Dec 2024 1:15 PM IST
The Gujarat High Court on Monday (November 25) quashed and set aside the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal that condoned the delay of approximately 22 years and 8 months in challenging an order issued by the Deputy Collector.
In doing so the court noted that the reasons provided by the Tribunal were unsustainable and its order was akin to a non speaking order. The case centred on the revision application filed by the State, challenging an order passed by the Deputy Collector, which had converted the tenure of land from restricted to unrestricted for agricultural purposes.
The State, through the Mamlatdar of Kodinar, had filed a revision application in the Tribunal to challenge the Deputy Collector's decision from 1996. Along with the revision, the State also filed an application to condone the delay of 22 years in filing the application. On June 12 the Tribunal condoned the delay, permitting the revision application to be heard. This prompted the petitioner to challenge the Tribunal's decision in the High Court.
Justice Nikhil Kariel noted in its order that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal failed to provide sufficient reasons for condoning the delay of over 22 years. Finding the reasoning unsustainable Justice Kariel said:
"Perusing the order passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal it appears that no reasons much less sufficient reasons for condoning delay of more than 22 years, has been taken into consideration. It also appears that on absolutely vague and ambiguous observations namely that whenever the Government for public purpose bifurcates districts, complex situation arises and on account of the same sometimes issues like the present, escape the notice of the Government authorities therefore, good cause for condoning delay of more than 22 years according to learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is made out. To this Court it would appear that the reasoning is completely unsustainable".
The Court found this reasoning inadequate, emphasizing that such a long delay required more than just vague observations to justify it. The Court emphasized the need for a clear and valid explanation for such a long delay, even though the State is not required to justify every single day of the delay.
The Court noted in the Order, “In view of the long delay, which has occurred, it was necessary and expected of the revision applicants- State to have made out a good cause for condonation of delay and whereas the same was required to be considered by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in accordance with law and in accordance with the law down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. It would appear that while the State, considering that it is an impersonal machinery, is not required to explain delay on day-to-day basis but at the same time, to this Court it would appear that there has to be atleast some reasonable grounds made out for condonation of such a huge delay. It would appear that the reasonings, which weighed with the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal cannot be treated to be sufficient cause for condoning delay of the above nature".
The Court then noted that the Tribunal's order requires interference as it is akin to a non speaking order. It said:
“At the same time, since the order is being interfered on the ground that it is almost akin to a non-speaking order, appropriate opportunity also requires to be afforded to the State for making out a case for condoning delay and the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is required to be directed to consider the same within a specific time limit.”
The Court thereafter quashed and set aside the Tribunal's order. It then directed the Tribunal to revive the revision application and the delay condonation application, adding that the condonation of delay application is to be decided within 45 days of receipt of the high court's order.
Disposing of the plea the high court said Tribunal must consider the relevant laws and Supreme Court rulings while deciding the delay application and provide a clear, reasoned decision.
Case Title: Legal Heirs of Deceased Jamalsha Ibramsha Rafai & Ors. v/s Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Ors.
