Gujarat High Court
Ashokji Gandaji Thakor Died Hence … vs State Of Gujarat on 23 February, 2026
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14286 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
ASHOKJI GANDAJI THAKOR DIED HENCE THROUGH HIS HEIRS & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR PATHIK M ACHARYA(3520) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,2,3,4,5,6
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
IG JOSHI(8726) for the Respondent(s) No. 15
MR A S VAKIL, SENIOR COUNSEL with TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 23/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Pathik M. Acharya, learned advocate appearing
for the petitioners, Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing
for the respondent No.1 – State, Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Senior
Counsel appearing with Mr. Tirth Nayak, learned advocate
appearing on caveat for the respondent No.2 and Mr. I.G. Joshi,
learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.15.
Page 1 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
2. By way of present petition, the petitioners herein have
challenged the impugned order dated 23.08.2022 passed by
the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Revision
Application No.TEN/BA/112/2017 duly produced at Annexure –
A to the petition whereby, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
rejected the Revision Application preferred by the petitioners
on the ground of delay without providing any reasoning and
without application of mind, and quashing and setting aside
the order passed by the learned Collector, Ahmedabad, dated
10.01.1990 duly produced at Annexure – C to the petition,
having prayed for the following reliefs:
“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit the present petition;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.TEN/BA/112/2017 and
further be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 10.01.1990
passed by the Ld. Collector, Ahmedabad; Annexure A and C.(C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships
may be pleased to stay order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application
No.TEN/BA/112/2017;
(D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships
may be pleased to stay order dated 10.01.1990 passed by the Ld.
Collector, Ahmedabad;
(E) Grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (C) and (D);
(F) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further
reliefs as may deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case may kindly be granted.”
Page 2 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition
read thus:
3.1 The land bearing Survey Nos.112, 112/A, 112/B, 112-3,
115/1, Revenue Block Nos.139, 140, 200 situated at Village :
Khodiyar, Taluka : Daskroi, District : Ahmedabad (for short ‘the
subject land’) belong to the forefathers of the present
petitioners namely, Gandaji Jenaji and Keshaji Jenaji. The
disputed properties came to be purchased by the respondent
No.2 by way of registered sale deed. The entry of sale was duly
certified in the revenue record as revenue entry No.1615. The
respondent No.2 was not an agriculturist and therefore, under
Section 84(C) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Tenancy Act‘), the registered sale
deed was void ab-initio and the same being impermissible in
the eye of law, came to be challenged by way of filing Ganot
Case Nos.479 of 1984, 480 of 1984, 481 of 1984 and 482 of
1984 before the Krushipanch. The Mamlatdar, Krushipanch by
order dated 20.03.1989 allowed the Ganot Case being
No.479/84 wherein, the registered sale deed was held to be
untenable in eye of law, the same being in breach of Section
84(C) of the Tenancy Act.
Page 3 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
3.2 Being aggrieved, the respondent No.2 challenged the
said order passed by the Mamlatdar, Krushipanch, before the
Collector, Ahmedabad, by way of an appeal being Appeal
No.113 of 1989, which came to be allowed by order dated
10.01.1990 duly produced at Annexure – C to the petition.
3.3 The petitioners herein preferred Revision Application
being No.TEN/BA/112/2017 before the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal along with delay condonation application in filing the
revision application. By the impugned order dated 23.08.2022,
the Tribunal rejected the petitioners’ revision application on
the ground of delay and on merits, which has resulted into
filing of the present petition for the prayers, as referred to
herein above.
3.4 The petitioners herein also preferred Regular Civil Suit
No.210 of 2008 against the private respondents for declaration
and permanent injunction before the Principal Civil Judge,
Ahmedabad Rural, which came to be rejected under Order 7
Rule 11(d) by order dated 30.01.2018. The aforesaid is
challenged by the petitioners by way of Civil Appeal No.376 of
2022, which is pending before the District Court, Ahmedabad
Page 4 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
Rural.
4. Mr. Pathik M. Acharya, learned advocate appearing for
the petitioners submits that the impugned order is required to
be interfered with mainly, on the ground that the respondent
herein has played fraud with the petitioners and executed a
sale deed, which is voidable and under judicial scrutiny. It is
submitted that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order
merely, by taking into consideration that fact that there was
allegedly delay of 27 years in filing the revision application. It
has however overlooked the fact that the Tribunal should
exercise its power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in
condoning the delay by taking a lenient view without giving
importance to the technicalities of the law and focus of the
substantial question of law – whether a person who is not an
agriculturist could legally purchase the agricultural land under
the provisions of the Tenancy Act.
4.1 Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in case of
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Aafloat
Textiles India Private Limited, reported in (2009) 11 SCC
18 wherein, it is held that fraud vitiates every solemn act.
Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted
Page 5 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
that the impugned order is such that the same is required to
be quashed and set aside.
5. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.
Tirth Nayak, learned advocate appearing on caveat for the
respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners herein are the
legal heirs of the original vendor – Samjuben, widow of Jenaji
and mother of the petitioners herein having entered into a sale
deed with the respondent No.2 herein. The mutation entry of
the same is mutated in the revenue record being Entry
No.1615, which was subsequently certified. It is submitted that
an application being Ganot Case No.479/84 was filed before
the Mamlatdar and Krushipanch where, Smajuben, Gandaji and
Keshaji were parties alleging breach of Section 63 of the
Tenancy Act wherein, by order dated 20.03.1989, the said
application was allowed. It is further submitted that the
respondent No.2 herein preferred Ganot Appeal No.113 of
1989 before the Deputy Collector, which came to be allowed
by order dated 10.01.1990 by quashing and setting aside the
order passed by the Mamlatdar and Krushipanch, dated
20.03.1989. It is submitted that Samjuben, Gandaji and Keshaji
passed away and in their lifetime did not challenge the
Page 6 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector i.e.
respondent No.1 herein, dated 10.01.1990.
5.1 Mr. Vakil, learned Senior Counsel submits that the
petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 being sons and daughters of late
Gandaji, the petitioner Nos.5 and 6 being sons of late Keshaji,
challenged the order passed by the Deputy Collector, dated
10.01.1990 as provided under Section 76 of the Tenancy Act
after a period of 27 years. It is submitted that no error can be
said to have been committed by the learned Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal in dismissing the application seeking condonation of
delay in absence of sufficient cause shown by the petitioners
herein to condone the delay of more than 27 years. Placing
reliance on the application filed by the petitioners for
condonation of delay, it is submitted that it is specifically
stated in paragraph 1 of the said application that the
proceedings of Appeal No.113 of 1989 before the respondent
No.1 were being pursued by the Gandaji and Keshaji in their
lifetime and therefore, the petitioners had no knowledge and it
is only upon the death, the petitioners acquired the knowledge
on 27.04.2017 however, the same does not constitute
sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the
Page 7 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
Limitation Act. It is further submitted that the application for
condonation of delay is silent as to how and when the
petitioners came to know about the order passed by the
Deputy Collector, dated 10.01.1990, which is devoid of
pleadings with respect to sufficient cause to seek condonation
of delay of 27 plus years. Placing reliance on the aforesaid
submissions, it is submitted that this Court may not exercise
extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
5.2 It is further submitted that the petitioners have made an
effort to bring the respondents herein within the ambit of
‘fraud’. Answering the aforesaid submission, it is submitted
that the application for condonation delay is devoid of such
allegation or averments to alleged fraud. It is submitted that
the alleged fraud argued by the petitioners is sale of the
subject land by way of registered sale deed on 28.03.1982 by
Samjuben (grandmother of the petitioners) an agriculturist in
favour of the respondent No.2 allegedly to the non-
agriculturists. That, firstly, sale by an agriculturist to an alleged
non-agriculturist cannot be termed to be ‘fraud’. Secondly,
such sale of 28.03.1982 was subject matter of Ganot Case
Page 8 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
No.479 of 1984 to which, vendor Samjuben as well as Gandaji
and Keshaji were parties. That, after succeeding in the Ganot
Case, the respondent No.2 preferred appeal before the
respondent No.1 wherein, Samjuben, Gandaji and Keshaji were
parties. The appeal was allowed by order dated 10.01.1990.
Reliance is placed on the record that, the notices were also
issued to the respondents. In view thereof, it is submitted that
no element of fraud can be alleged against the respondent
herein.
5.3 It is submitted that Section 79 of the Tenancy Act has
only made applicable Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation
Act and that, Section 17 of the Limitation Act is not applicable.
It is submitted that the contention of the petitioners that the
petitioners are agriculturists and have deprived of their right to
undertake agricultural activities after almost 40-43 years from
the initial date of sale deed dated 28.03.1982, is such that the
same is inconsiderable. To substantiate his submission, Mr.
Vakil, learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision rendered in
case of Ramesh Ambalal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in 2011 SCC Online Guj 4253, in case of Legal
Heirs of Basiruddin Punnumiya Vs. State of Gujarat,
Page 9 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
reported in 2023 SCC Online Guj 488 and in case of State
of Gujarat Vs. Amrish Jagmohan Parikh & Ors., reported
in 1996 SCC Online Guj 91.
5.4 It is lastly submitted that the petitioners are the legal
heirs of the vendors and as such, they have no locus, right and
interest in the subject property and therefore, the petition at
the instance of the legal heirs of the vendors, is without any
locus. It is also submitted that without prejudice to the rights
and contention even if the respondent No.2 is held to be a non-
agriculturist, the procedure under Section 84C(4) of the Act will
be followed and the land vests with the respondent- State
however, no proceedings are initiated against the respondent
herein. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal refusing to condone the delay of 27
years is discretionary whereby, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in the facts of the present
case. In view of the aforesaid, in absence of any jurisdictional
error committed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
refusing to condone the delay of 27 years, the present petition
is such that the same being devoid of merits, is required to be
dismissed.
Page 10 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
5.5 Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Senior Counsel dealt with the
judgments relied upon by Mr. Pathik Acharya, learned
advocate appearing for the petitioners, it is stated that the said
judgments are not applicable in the facts of the present case.
The said judgments mainly deal with the civil proceedings.
There is no declaration sought or granted by the authority that
the sale transaction in the instant case can be said to be
fraudulent. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is
submitted that the present petition be dismissed.
6. Mr. Pathik Acharya, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners, in rejoinder, reiterates the contentions raised
earlier and submitted that the present petition is required to
be allowed and the delay is required to be condoned taking
into consideration the peculiar facts of the present case
wherein, the petitioners herein alleged fraud against the
respondent No.2 herein.
7. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the
respondent – State submits that the petitioners challenged the
order passed by the Deputy Collector, dated 10.01.1990 before
the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by preferring Revision
Page 11 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
Application, which was dismissed and the same has attained
finality.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners’
grandmother – Samjuben, widow of Jenaji and mother of
Gandaji Jenaji and Keshaji Jenaji, executed a sale deed in
favour of the Kalyanbhai Manibhai HUF, the respondent No.2
herein, on 30.03.1982. The sale was recorded in the revenue
record by Entry No.1615, which was subsequently certified on
15.09.1983. The aforesaid sale deed was subject matter of
challenge by the petitioners herein wherein, the plaint being
Regular Civil Suit No.210 of 2008 came to be rejected under
Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure by order
dated 30.01.2018, which is challenged by the petitioners
herein wherein, Civil Appeal being No.376 of 2022 is pending
before the District Court, Ahmedabad.
8.1 In the facts of the present case, the respondent –
Mamlatdar and Krushipanch, Daskroi, initiated suo-motu
proceedings by way of Ganot Case No.479/84 for breach of
Section 63 of the Tenancy Act where, Samjuben, Gandaji and
Keshaji were parties to the said proceedings. The Mamlatdar
Page 12 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
allowed the Ganot Case No.479/84 by order dated 20.03.1989,
which was subject matter of appeal being Ganot Appeal
No.113 of 1989 by the respondent No.2 herein before the
Deputy Collector wherein, the appeal came to be allowed by
quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar
and Krushipanch, dated 20.03.1989. It is not in dispute that the
notices were issued to the Samjuben, Gandaji and Keshaji. In
their lifetime, the said order was not challenged however, the
petitioners herein challenged the order passed by the Deputy
Collector, dated 10.01.1990 by preferring Revision Application
before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal under Section 76 of the
Tenancy Act along with the application for condonation of
delay. The said application for condonation of delay came to be
rejected by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by impugned order
dated 23.08.2022 wherein, it is held that the petitioners herein
have failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of
about 27 years.
9. This Court has perused the impugned order passed by
the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, dated 23.08.2022, which is duly
produced at Annexure – A to the petition. It is apposite to
reproduce relevant paragraphs of the said order, which read
Page 13 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
thus: (true translation)
“Upon considering the submissions of the parties and the records of
the subordinate office as well as the available records, it appears that with
regard to the lands of Mouje: Khodiyar bearing Survey No. 115/1, Block No.
200; Survey No. 115/1, Block No. 153; Survey Nos. 112/B, 112B, 112/3-K,
Block No. 140; and Survey No. 112, Block No. 139, being aggrieved and
dissatisfied by the orders dated 20/03/1989 passed by the Mamlatdar and
Agricultural Tribunal, Daskroi in Tenant Cases Nos. Khodiyar 479/84,
480/84, 481/84 and 482/84, Mr. Kalyanbhai Manilal, through Shaileshbhai
Kalyanbhai as Manager (Karta) of H.U.F., preferred an appeal before the
Deputy Collector (Land Reform) and Appeals, Ahmedabad. The Deputy
Collector (Land Reform) and Appeals, Ahmedabad, by his order in Ganot
Appeal No. 113/89 dated 10/01/1990, ordered to set aside the order dated
20/03/1989 passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Tribunal, Daskroi.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the present applicant,
Mr. Ashokji Gandabhai Thakor, has filed a revision application under
Section 76 of the Tenancy Act, whereby the dispute has arisen. In this
matter, the submissions of the applicant do not appear to be acceptable.
The present applicant is the heir of the vendor of the disputed land. The
forefathers of the applicant had, at the relevant time, sold the disputed
land by a registered document. Thus, after having sold the land by a
registered document, the revision application has been filed, which has
been filed after a delay of 27 years. The revision application has been
presented by the applicant with a delay of 27 years, 2 months and 1 day.
With regard to the said delay, sufficient day-to-day reasons have not been
stated. The submission of the applicant that the knowledge of the order
was acquired in the year 2017 does not appear to be acceptable. In the
delay application, it suffers the bar of Section 5(1) of the Limitation Act.
And as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, such a long delay
does not appear to be condonable. Further, the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, as reported in A.I.R. 2011 at page No. 1237, lays down as
under:
“Limitation Act, 1963-S 5 delay in filling appeal condonation appeal
filed after prescribed period of limitation – delay of 114 days appellant did
not show sufficient cause for delay held, appeal required to be dismissed
on the ground of limitation appeal dismissed. As stated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006, no reason or sufficient
cause shown as to what steps were taken during this period and why
immediate steps were not taken by the applicant, even after they
admittedly came to know of the pendency of the appeal before this Court
once a valuable right, as accrued in favour of one party as a result of the
failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause
and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the
mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a
result of negligence, default or inaction of that party – appeal dismissed.”
Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment and upon considering the
facts and details of the present case, as discussed in the order, the
application for condonation of the long delay caused in filing the present
revision application is liable to be rejected, and therefore, as the revision
application does not appear to be maintainable, the following order is
passed in this matter.
-: Order :-
Page 14 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
The delay application submitted in Revision Application No.
TEN/BA/112/2017 (5112) filed by the applicant is hereby rejected, and on
that basis, the revision application is ordered to be rejected.
No order as to costs.”
10. This Court has independently also considered the case of
the petitioners harmoniously taking into consideration the
application for condonation of delay, which is duly produced on
record at Annexure – D, page 39 to the petition. Upon bare
perusal of the application, it emerges that the only contention
that has been harped upon by Mr. Acharya, learned advocate
appearing for the petitioners herein is that of alleging fraud
against the respondent No.2. It emerges that no such
contention was raised by the petitioners herein before the
Tribunal.
10.1 It also emerges from the record that the petitioner herein
has also failed to bring the case of the petitioners within the
ambit of “sufficient cause” required for condoning the delay of
more than 27 years in preferring the Revision Application,
challenging the order passed by the Deputy Collector,
Ahmedabad, dated 10.01.1990.
10.2 Upon perusal of the application for condonation of delay,
the petitioners herein have failed to state the date of death of
Samjuben, Gandaji and Keshaji. It is vaguely stated in
Page 15 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
paragraph 1 of the application for condonation of delay that,
the proceedings of the Appeal No.113 of 1989 before the
respondent No.1 were being pursued by Gandaji and Keshaji in
their lifetime and therefore, the petitioners have no knowledge
and it is only upon their death that, it came to the knowledge
of the petitioners on 27.04.2017 of the order passed by the
respondent No.1 dated 10.01.1990 thereafter, the revision
application came to be filed on 26.05.2017. It is not even
stated as to how the order dated 10.01.1990 came to the
knowledge of the petitioners herein. The aforesaid, in the
opinion of this Court, does not constitute “sufficient cause” to
condone the delay of 27 years.
10.3 It further emerges from the record that the petitioners’
grandmother – Samjuben and Gandaji and Keshaji – the fathers
of the respective petitioners also in their lifetime never
challenged the order passed by the Deputy Collector, dated
10.01.1990 having accepted the order. However, the
petitioners after a delay of more than 27 years, challenged the
said order before the Tribunal.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by
the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 23.08.2022 is a plausible
Page 16 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
view, which requires no interference under Article 226 of the
constitution of India.
11. At this stage, it is apposite deal with the decisions relied
upon by Mr. Pathik M. Acharya, learned advocate appearing for
the petitioners :
(a) In case of Chandrasinh Khumansinh Bakrola Vs.
Ibrahim Suleman Narot since Deced. Through heirs,
reported in 2023 (0) GUJHC 40927.
(b) In case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) By Lrs.
Vs. Jagannath (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., reported in (1994) 1
SCC 1.
(c) In case of Shanti Devi and Ors. Vs. Jagan Devi and
Others, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1961.
The aforesaid judgments are not applicable in the facts of
the present case wherein, the orders/decree were obtained by
constituting fraud or suppressing material facts and
documents. In the facts of the present case, the petitioners
have failed to prove that the respondent No.2 herein
committed fraud.
Page 17 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
12. As submitted by Mr. Vakil, learned Senior Counsel that if
at all there is alleged breach of Section 84(C) of the Tenancy
Act by the respondent No.2 herein, the same would be dealt
with by the respondent – State in accordance with law.
However, no such notices are issued to the respondent No.2
herein.
12.1 Moreover, in the opinion of this Court, Samjuben was the
original vendor, the petitioners herein are the grandchildren of
the original vendor, who having pocketed the amount pursuant
to the sale deed entered into between the parties as such have
no locus to challenge or question the same.
Position of Law:
13. It is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down in case of
Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat &
Another, reported in (2011) 3 GLH 98 wherein paragraph 50
reads thus:
“50. In the above conspectus of the entire matter, we are of the view
that after all these years i.e. almost 31 years, the original owners i.e. the
appellants cannot say that the transaction of 1970 be declared as invalid
and the possession of the property be restored in their favour. We have
confined our discussion only in so far as the legality and validity of the
order passed by the learned Single Judge and the settled position of law in
so far as powers of the authorities to take transactions in suo-motu review
after an unreasonable period of time is concerned. It would also not lie in
the mouth of the appellants that they are agriculturists and they shouldPage 18 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
not be deprived of their right to undertake the agricultural operations
almost after a period of 30 years. All of a sudden the thought of doing
agricultural work has come in the minds of the appellants is
inconceivable.”
13.1 It is also apposite to refer to the ratio laid down in case of
State of Gujarat Vs. Amrish Jagmohan Parikh and Ors.,
reported in 1996 SCC Online Guj 91 wherein, paragraphs 3
and 5 read thus:
“3. The petition is filed more than 4 years and 7 months after the
impugned order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal recorded on 5-9- 1991.
There is delay of more than 4 years and 7 months in filing the present
petition and the petitioner has stated in para 6 of the petition the grounds
for belated filing of petition. According to the case of the petitioner, there
was correspondence between the Revenue and Legal Department of the
State and also between the Departments and the Office of the Collector
and also with the Office of the Government Pleader Ahmedabad. Para 6 of
the petition pertaining to the explanation for filing petition late is Material
which reads as under:
“The petitioner says that in this case Tribunal decided the matter on
5-9-1991. Thereafter the Revenue Department corresponded with the
Legal Department. Collector and Prant Officer and ultimately on 6-2-
1993, the Legal Department informed the Government Pleader, High
Court that in this matter the Government desires to file writ petition
before the High Court. Thereafter the Office of the Government
Pleader, High Court informed the concerned department to send the
relevant papers and on 1-3-1993 certain papers were delivered to the
Office of the Government Pleader. However, as the records were
incomplete the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court
addressed a letter to the Revenue Department. Thereafter the Officer
of the Office of the Dy. Collector came to High Court on 20-7-1994
with certain details. But as still the details were incomplete, the Office
of the Government Pleader again requested the concerned
department to send the complete details and ultimately in the month
of February 1995 all the details were received by the Office of the
Government Pleader, High Court and thereafter the writ petition is
prepared and filed before this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner, therefore,
requests this Hon’ble Court to condone the delay, if any, in filing the
writ petition in this behalf.”
The aforesaid explanation in para 6 of the petition is very general without
furnishing particulars as to what delay occurred where. On the plain
perusal of para 6 of the petition, it could safely be concluded that there
was no sufficient explanation or reasonable cause for inordinate delay of
more that 4 years and 7 months in filing the petition after the passing of
the impugned order by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Responsible officers
dealing with this file in the concerned Departments and the office of the
Page 19 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
Collector have also not filed affidavits. The affidavit filed by one Under
Secretary of the Revenue Department is also too general and vague. The
grounds stated for condonation of delay in filing this petition late after 4
years and 7 months is not acceptable and sustainable. It does not
constitute a reasonable and sufficient cause. Therefore, the petition suffers
from the vice of delay and laches and the reason for such an inordinate
delay is not excusable and sufficient. There is a definte purpose and policy
in evolution of the doctring of delay and laches in filing susbstantive
petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
5. In view of the provisions of Section 76 of the Tenancy Act, the
revision is required to be filed within a spell of 60 days from the date of
passing of the impugned order. The impugned order of the Collector was
passed in suo motu revision No. 170/83 on 29-12-1983. The revision was
filed after 3 years and 7 days. The said delay is not condoned by the
Tribunal for sufficient grounds. Thus, there was no sufficient ground for
condonation of delay as held by the Tribunal which appears to be fully
justified. It is very clear-from the present petition that the certified true
copy of the impugned order of the Deputy Collector recorded in suo motu
revision was applied for one year and eight months after the passing of the
order. No reasonable explanation was placed on record as to what
prompted the Government not to file an application for certified copy
before the expiry of more than 1 year and 8 months. Apart from that, even
after getting the certified true copy of the order on 29-9-1986, the revision
came to be filed on 7-1-1987. No any reason was placed on record as to
why, again there was delay of, 95 days in filing revision after the affidavit
was sworn. It is rightly observed by the Tribunal in the impugned order
that in the case of Gandhinagar district there is only one district i.e.
Gandhinagar and it has only one Deputy Collector and the process of filing
revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal could have been completed
well in time, but there was an exhibition of wanton, gross, inordinate delay
on the part of the concerned Departments. There was no reasonable,
acceptable, sufficient cause or ground for filing the revision application
late. Having regard to the factual scenario emerging from the record of the
case, even while looking at the merits incidentally, this Court is unable to
find that the impugned order is in any way vulnerable. No special altitude
or any consideration can be given on the ground of petitioner being State.
This Court in a Full Bench decision rendered in Municipal Corporation of
Ahmedabad v. Voltas Limited, (1994) 2 Guj LR 1325 : (AIR 1995 Guj 29)
clearly laid down that the delay must be explained and established and the
Government Departments and statutory bodies cannot claim condonation
of delay on the ground of administrative follow up procedures. The present
case is precisely covered by the said Full Bench decision of this Court.
Again, in a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this
Court is not sitting as an appellate Court against the decision of the
Tribunal. Writ jurisdiction of this Court is very much circumscribed in a
narrow compass. Essentially, this Court functions as a supervisory
authority. This Court cannot reappreciate and re-analyse the factual
aspects. The Tribunal on appreciation of facts reached to a positive
conclusion that there was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in
not filing the revision before the Tribunal within the period of limitation.”
14. For the reasons as stated herein above and considering
Page 20 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14286/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
the aforesaid position of law, in the opinion of this Court, the
petitioners herein have failed to prove that the respondent
No.2 herein has committed fraud to bring the case of the
petitioners within the ambit of the condonation of delay of 27
years and also in absence of such contention having raised
before the competent authority. The findings arrived at by the
Tribunal are findings of fact and in accordance with law much
less any error could be said to have been committed by the
Tribunal while passing the impugned order.
15. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any
reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 23.08.2022
passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal invoking Article 227 of
the Constitution of India. The present petition fails and the
same is dismissed.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
NEHA
Page 21 of 21
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 21:19:26 IST 2026
