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 CITATION C/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 should Page 18 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 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