Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Gujarat against a judgment dated 22.12.2015 passed by a Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 26801 of 2022. The original writ petitioner had purchased land from Ramji Mandir Trust with permission from the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The petitioner sought non-agricultural permission under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, which was rejected by the District Collector, Rajkot, on 22.07.2015. The petitioner filed Revision Application No. 6 of 2015 before the Secretary, Revenue Department, which was also dismissed on 22.12.2015. The petitioner then filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the Single Judge on 22.12.2015, setting aside the Collector's order and the revisional order. The State, aggrieved, filed a review petition before the Single Judge, which was dismissed on 22.03.2016. Thereafter, the State filed the present Letters Patent Appeal along with an application for condonation of delay of about 10 years. The main legal issue was whether the delay should be condoned. The State argued that the delay was due to the pendency of the review petition and administrative processing. The respondent opposed, stating that the review was filed after the limitation for appeal had expired and the State was negligent. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Limitation Act, particularly Section 5, and held that the State failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay. The Court noted that the review petition was filed only after the limitation for appeal had expired, indicating a lack of bona fides. The Court also held that the period spent in review cannot be excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. The Court dismissed the delay condonation application and consequently the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The State sought condonation of 10-year delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal against a judgment dated 22.12.2015, claiming that the delay was due to pendency of a review petition and administrative processing. The Court held that the explanation was not satisfactory and the delay was not sufficiently explained, as the review petition was filed after the limitation period for appeal had expired and the State failed to show diligence. (Paras 1-14) B) Limitation Act - Exclusion of Time for Review - Section 12(2) - The Court held that the period spent in pursuing a review petition cannot be excluded for computing limitation for filing an appeal, as the review was not filed bona fide but only to buy time. The State's conduct showed lack of diligence. (Paras 10-14) C) Bombay Land Revenue Code - Non-Agricultural Permission - Section 65 - The dispute pertained to rejection of non-agricultural permission for land purchased from a trust. The Single Judge had allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Collector's order. The Division Bench refused to condone the delay, thereby upholding the Single Judge's order. (Paras 2-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 10 years in filing the Letters Patent Appeal should be condoned, and whether the period spent in pursuing a review petition can be excluded for computing limitation.
Final Decision
The Court dismissed the Civil Application for condonation of delay, and consequently dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal as barred by limitation, upholding the Single Judge's order.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Limitation Act
- Section 5
- Letters Patent Appeal
- Review petition
- Sufficient cause
- Delay of 10 years
- Bombay Land Revenue Code
- Section 65
- Bombay Public Trusts Act
- Section 36
