SAMUBEN v. RAMUBHAI POPATBHAI BHARAVAD

said order, the petitioner challenged the same after some three years before the Deputy Collector [Land Reforms (Appeal)], Ahmedabad in Tenancy Appeal No. 49 of 1999. The said appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Collector on 29th September, 1999. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred above referred Revision Application No. 344 of 2000 before the Tribunal. The said Revision Application was also time barred by some nine months. The petitioner, therefore, applied for condonation of the said delay. The petitioner stated that the impugned order dated 29th September, 1999 made by the Deputy Collector was not served upon her. However, she caused an inquiry to be made in the office of the Deputy Collector on 25th August, 2000 and learnt that the appeal was dismissed on 29th September, 1999. She, therefore, applied for certified copy on the same day and after receiving the certified copy, challenged the order before the Revenue Tribunal.

Thus, the delay in question was caused on account of the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. She was not indolent in pursuing the remedy available to her nor she had given up her right to prefer revision application. The learned Tribunal, however, did not believe the statement of the petitioner. The Tribunal, under the impugned order dated 19th February, 2001 reasoned that, `the Deputy Collector has sent intimation to her at the address given in the appeal memo and when one party has received the intimation I do not see any reason to question how other party has not received the same.' The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the Revision Application. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. (cid:9)Mr. Vyas has submitted that there was no reason for the Tribunal for not believing the statement made by the petitioner. The order declaring the respondent no. 1 as a tenant was made by the Mamlatdar & ALT in absence of the petitioner.

The petitioner having learnt about it had challenged the same before the Deputy Collector. The petitioner, therefore, had no reason not to challenge the order of the Deputy Collector, even if it were served upon the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matters of Karim Abdulla v. Heirs of deceased Bai Hoorbai Jama & Ors., [16 GLR 835] and of Chhaga Ramabhai & Ors. vs. Heirs of Chhotabhai & Anr., [1994 (1) GLH 16]. (cid:9)Learned advocate Mr. D.C Dave has contested the petition. He has submitted that even if the delay were condoned, the petitioner has no case on merits. He has submitted that earlier Mr. Vaghabhai Chhelabhai, through whom the petitioner claims tenancy had made an application for entering his name as the tenant in case no. 39/80-81, however, the same has been withdrawn by the said Shri Vaghabhai Chhelabhai on 18th May, 1995. He has further submitted that pending proceeding before the Revenue Tribunal, the respondent no.