9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstitution of India for challenging the correctness of the decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad ('the Tribunal' for convenience) on 13th June 1986 in Revision Application No. Ten. B.A. 101 of 1984. By its impugned decision, the Tribunal rejected the revisional application of the petitioners as time-barred without examining the merits of the case. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioners moved the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Khambat ('the first authority' for convenience) with an application under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Act' for brief) for declaration of their status as the tena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision rendered on 13th June 1986 in the aforesaid revisional application of the petitioners, the Tribunal rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the decision at Annexure-C to this petition. 3. Shri Patel for the petitioners has been quite critical of the approach and attitude of the Tribunal towards the application for condonation of the delay in preferring the main application. According to Shri Patel for the petitioners, the Tribunal ought to have made a liberal approach to the delay condonation application and ought to have condoned the delay in pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther than rejecting it on technical considerations. 5. The principles enunciated by this Court in its aforesaid ruling in the case of Karim Abdullah (supra) has come to be reiterated by the Supreme Court in its binding ruling in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others, reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353. It cannot be gainsaid that the law declared by the Apex Court is binding to all courts and tribunals under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 6. That would bring me to the case on hand. As transpiring from a copy of the delay condonation application at Annexure A to his petition, the delay in preferring the revisional application was sought to be condoned mainly on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side the abatement and bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 5 on record because the appellants are admittedly from the rural area and in a country like ours where there is so much poverty, ignorance and illiteracy, it would not be fair to presume that everyone knows that on death of a respondent, the legal representatives have to be brought on record within a certain time. The ends of justice require that the application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 5 should have been granted. (Emphasis supplied.) The aforesaid quotation from the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sumiran (supra) is quite self-explanatory and needs no elaboration or elucid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this ruling. 11. Besides, the aforesaid rulings of the Lahore High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court have merely persuasive value and no binding force. As against this, sitting as a single Judge, I am bound by the ruling of this Court in the case of Karim Abdullah (supra). Even otherwise, I am in respectful agreement with the principles of law enunciated therein. As pointed out hereinabove, the said principles have come to be reiterated by the Supreme Court in its aforesaid ruling in the case of Mst. Katiji (supra). The ruling of the Supreme Court is obviously binding to me. 12. The binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Yashwant Gajanan Joshi and Others reported in AIR 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay in preferring the main revisional application on irrelevant consideration and by applying wrong principles. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus (supra) will not be applicable and is distinguishable on its own facts. 15. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the decision at Annexure C to this petition cannot be sustained in law. It has to be quashed and set aside. 16. In the result, this petition is accepted. The impugned decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad on 13th June 1986 in Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 101 of 1984 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedaba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
