DHIRUBHAI BHUPATSINH BARAD vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
Reserved On : 15/06/2026
Pronounced On : 02/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12168 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DHIRUBHAI BHUPATSINH BARAD & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR ROHAN G VAGHELA(12034) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1) By way of filing the present petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, Section 108(6A) of the Gujarat Land
Revenue Rules, as well as Sections 54 and 75 of the Saurashtra
Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance,
1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the petitioners have
prayed for the following reliefs:
‘’(A) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing and setting
aside the order dated 06.06.2018 passed by the learned SSRD in
Page 1 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
Revision Application No.2/2018 as also the order dated 22.12.2017
passed by the District Collector, Rajkot in Appeal No.124/2011-12 as
well as the order dated 21.06.2012 passed by the Deputy Collector,
Rajkot (Rural) in Remand Case No.129/2011 and be further pleased
to direct the revenue authorities below to restore Entry No.1167
which was certified on 26.09.1986 in the revenue record.
(B) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this
petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution,
implementation and operation of the order dated 06.06.2018 passed
by the learned SSRD in Revision Application No.2/2018 as also the
order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the District Collector, Rajkot in
Appeal No.124/2011-12 as well as the order dated 21.06.2012
passed by the Deputy Collector, Rajkot (Rural) in Remand Case
No.129/2011.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this
petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the revenue
authorities to maintain status-quo qua entry No.1167 which was
certified on 26.09.1986. and also with respect to land bearing Survey
No.153/P and 147/P owned by the petitioners situated at Village
Targhadi, Taluka Targhadi, District Rajkot.
(D) to pass such other and further order/s as may be just and
necessary in the circumstances of the case.’’
2) The case of the petitioners may be summarised in a nutshell
as under:
2.1) The petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased Bhupatsinh
Jivabhai Barad, who was holding agricultural land in Village
Targhadi, District Rajkot. The petitioners' father was also holding
land at Village Barvala, Taluka Bhesan, bearing Survey No. 249.
The petitioners have been agriculturists since birth.
2.2) On 18.01.1983, the petitioners' father executed a
registered sale deed in favour of one Takhubha Rambhai with
Page 2 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
respect to land bearing Survey No. 249 situated at Village
Barvala. Pursuant thereto, Revenue Entry No. 949 was mutated
and subsequently certified on 12.04.1985. Thereafter, on
04.07.1986, the petitioners, along with their father, purchased
lands bearing Survey Nos. 153/P and 147/P by executing
registered sale deeds from the owners thereof, namely Patel
Bhikhabhai Savabhai and Patel Mohanbhai Pamabhai,
respectively. Consequent thereto, Revenue Entry Nos. 1167 and
1168 were mutated in the revenue records on 29.07.1986 and
were subsequently certified on 26.09.1986.
2.3) In the year 1992, after a lapse of six years, the Assistant
Collector exercised suo motu powers and cancelled Revenue
Entry No. 1167 on the ground of breach of Section 54 of the Act.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision, an appeal
was preferred before the District Collector. The said appeal came
to be dismissed, thereby confirming the order passed by the
Assistant Collector. The aforesaid orders were challenged by way
of a Revision Application before the SSRD. The said Revision
Application was allowed and the orders passed by the Assistant
Collector and the District Collector were quashed and set aside.
The matter was remanded to the District Collector for fresh
adjudication. Thereafter, instead of deciding the appeal on merits
after considering and appreciating the submissions advanced by
the advocates and the material available on record, the District
Collector remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector, Morbi.
Pursuant to the directions issued by the District Collector, Rajkot,
Page 3 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
the Deputy Collector issued a show-cause notice under Section
54 of the Act on 07.02.2008, i.e., after a lapse of 22 years from
the date of execution of the registered sale deeds.
2.4) By order dated 16.01.2009, the Deputy Collector held that
the transactions reflected in Revenue Entry Nos. 1167 and 1168
were null and void on account of breach of Section 54 of the Act.
The said order was challenged by way of an appeal before the
District Collector. The appeal was partly allowed, and the order
passed by the Deputy Collector was set aside on certain issues,
with the matter being remanded to the Deputy Collector, Rajkot.
2.5) Pursuant thereto, remand proceedings were once again
initiated before the Deputy Collector, Rajkot. However, the
authority concerned, without considering the issues involved on
merits and solely acting in terms of the directions issued by the
District Collector, merely observed that no interference was
warranted with the earlier order. Consequently, the earlier order
came to be confirmed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with
the said decision passed by the Deputy Collector, the petitioners
preferred an appeal before the District Collector on 26.11.2015.
During the pendency of the said proceedings, one Abhesinh
Arjanji moved an application seeking to transpose as an
appellant, which ultimately came to be allowed.
2.6) The said Abhesinh Arjanji produced ample evidence to
demonstrate that he was a bona fide purchaser and an
Page 4 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
agriculturist. Therefore, in terms of the statutory provisions,
more particularly Section 54(A-2) of the Act, the benefit thereof
was liable to be extended in his favour. Considering the same, the
District Collector partly allowed the appeal qua Abhesinh Arjanji
by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Deputy
Collector with respect to Revenue Entry No. 1168. However, so
far as Revenue Entry No. 1167 is concerned, the order passed by
the Deputy Collector came to be confirmed by the District
Collector.
2.7) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said decision
of the District Collector, Rajkot, the petitioners preferred a
Revision Application before the SSRD. However, the said Revision
Application was not entertained by the SSRD. Hence, the present
petition has been filed.
3) Heard learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for the
petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Siddharth Rami for the
Respondent Nos. 1 – 4.
4) Learned advocate Mr. Shah has reiterated the above-stated
facts and forcefully submitted that the order passed by the
authority is ex facie illegal, unjust, and contrary to the settled
proposition of law and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and
set aside. He further submitted that it is an undisputed fact that
the forefathers of the petitioners were agriculturists and were
holding agricultural lands in different parts of the State. The
Page 5 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
father of the petitioners had entered into a transaction in the
year 1983 by executing a registered sale deed in favour of
Takhubha Rambhai, pursuant to which Mutation Entry No. 949
came to be recorded and was subsequently certified on
12.04.1985. He further submitted that the father of the
petitioners had also purchased agricultural land in the year 1986
by way of a registered sale deed and entries to that effect were
mutated in the revenue record and subsequently certified on
26.09.1986 by the competent revenue authority.
4.1) It is a matter of fact on record that after the lapse of a
period of six years, suo motu proceedings came to be initiated by
the Deputy Collector under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land
Revenue Rules to challenge the entry mutated in the revenue
record. Ultimately, the said entry came to be cancelled in the
revenue proceedings. The matter travelled twice before the
office of the SSRD and was remanded to the Collector. On both
occasions, the Deputy Collector passed orders of remand by
quashing and setting aside the orders passed by different
authorities in the respective proceedings.
4.2) Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that it is an admitted
position of fact that the suo motu proceedings were initiated by
the Deputy Collector after a lapse of six years from the date on
which the entry mutated and certified in the revenue record. The
law in this regard is well settled since the decision in Raghav
Natha v. State of Gujarat , reported in 10 GLR 992 , wherein the
Page 6 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
Hon'ble Apex Court held that although no specific limitation
period is prescribed under the statute, in the absence of any
statutory provision, proceedings must be initiated within a
reasonable period. Such reasonable period, according to the
settled law, cannot ordinarily extend beyond two years.
Admittedly, in the present case, the proceedings were initiated
after a period of six years. Therefore, solely on the ground of
inordinate delay on the part of the authority concerned, the
proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside by allowing the
present petition.
4.3) Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submitted that the
record reveals that for the first time, the Deputy Collector,
Rajkot, issued a show-cause notice under Section 54 of the Act to
the petitioners, after a lapse of long period of time. It is an
admitted position of fact that the transaction was executed in
the year 1986, whereas the show-cause notice came to be issued
in the year 2008, i.e., after a lapse of 22 years. Such enormous
delay in initiation of the proceedings itself would become fatal to
the case of the State in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in various pronouncements.
4.4) Learned advocate further submitted that it is the specific
case of the State that the proceedings were initiated as soon as
the relevant facts came to the notice of the authority concerned.
However, the proceedings were initiated under Rule 108(6) of
the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, whereas while cancelling the
Page 7 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
entry mutated in the revenue record, the authority ultimately
held that there was a breach of Section 54 of the Act on the
ground that the petitioners were not agriculturists at the time of
entering into the transaction. Therefore, on the face of it, it can
be said that there was a cross-utilisation of powers by the
authority concerned. The law is well settled that where
proceedings are initiated under a particular provision of law, the
authority cannot arrive at a conclusion based on the alleged
breach of provisions contained in another enactment. If during
the pendency of such proceedings any breach of a different
enactment is noticed, separate proceedings are required to be
initiated in accordance with law. However, the proceedings
initiated under one enactment cannot be decided solely on the
basis of an alleged breach of another enactment.
4.5) Learned advocate further submitted that the father of the
petitioners had purchased the property by executing a registered
sale deed and pursuant thereto, an entry came to be mutated in
the revenue record. Unless and until the said sale deed is
annulled by a competent Civil Court, the revenue authority has
no jurisdiction to cancel the entry which is based upon a duly
registered document. He placed heavy reliance upon the
statutory provisions of law and submitted that a statutory
obligation is cast upon the revenue authorities to mutate entries
in the revenue record whenever copies of registered documents
are produced before them. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further
submitted that the father of the petitioners had purchased the
Page 8 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
property in the year 1986 for carrying out agricultural activities
on the said land. We are now in the year 2026 and more than 40
years have elapsed. Till date, the said property has continuously
been used and utilised for agricultural activities by the
petitioners.
4.6) He heavily relied upon the decision rendered by the
Division Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat vs. Hussainbhai
Satarbhai Meman reported in 2024(0) AIJEL-HC 249387 and
submitted that after considering several judicial
pronouncements, the Division Bench held that it is well settled
that even though void transaction, if is allowed to remain
effective for considerable long period, the authority named
therein will be precluded from initiating proceedings to annul it.
It can remain effective and in existence till it is invalidated and
set aside. If its existence is allowed for a considerable period and
by a passage creating valuable rights in favour of a considerable
section of people. It is difficult to accept the proposition that
despite the change the competent authority under the Act would
be entitled to exercise powers under Section 84(C) of the Act at
any point of time.
4.7) Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submitted that on
01.06.2000, the Government issued a circular providing that if an
agriculturist intends to purchase agricultural land after selling his
existing land, he is required to submit an application to the
Collector within 30 days from the date of such sale. Upon receipt
Page 9 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
of such application, the Collector is required to issue a certificate
permitting him to purchase land anywhere within the State
within a period of 90 days, and during that period his status as an
agriculturist would continue.
4.8) He further submitted that another Resolution came to be
issued by the State Government on 01.07.2009. Under the said
Resolution, an agriculturist desirous of obtaining an agriculturist
certificate is required to submit an application before the
Collector, whereupon a certificate valid for a period of six
months is required to be issued, enabling such person to
purchase agricultural land during the said period. By a bare
perusal of the language employed in the Resolution, it becomes
clear that the Government intended to extend all necessary
support to agriculturists so as to enable them to retain their
status as agriculturists for a reasonable period of time.
4.9) Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submitted that in the
case Janardan D. Patel v. State of Gujarat , reported in 1996(0)
AIJEL-HC 205413 this Court held that the revisional powers
contained under Rule 108(6) are not akin to those contained
under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Such
revisional powers are required to be exercised within a
reasonable period and the revenue authorities do not possess
the jurisdiction to determine the validity of a transaction on the
touchstone of statutory provisions contained in a different
enactment.
Page 10 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
4.10) He further relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in State of Gujarat v. Natwarlal Jagdishbhai Acharya
reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 247059 and submitted that
proceedings initiated by the Collector after an inordinate delay
are void ab initio, in view of the fact that status of the original
petitioner being an agriculturist has been approved by all
concerned authorities and has attained finality in the judicial
hierarchy.
4.11) He lastly submitted that, till date, the sale deed executed
by the father of the petitioners has never been challenged by the
authority concerned before any competent forum. Considering
the aforesaid factual and legal aspects of the matter, there is
substantial merit in the petition and therefore, the same
deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the
impugned orders passed by the authorities concerned.
5) Learned AGP Mr. Siddharth Rami appearing for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that no error either of law or of fact can be
said to have been committed by the authorities concerned while
passing the impugned orders. He submitted that the authorities
have considered the documents and material available on record
in their true spirit and proper perspective and after assigning
detailed reasons, have passed well-reasoned orders. The said
orders have thereafter been confirmed by the appellate revenue
authorities. He further submitted that the orders challenged in
the present petition are essentially based upon concurrent
Page 11 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
findings of fact and in exercise of writ jurisdiction, Courts are
generally slow in interfering with such findings.
5.1) Learned AGP Mr. Rami further submitted that it is an
admitted position of fact that the father of the petitioners had
entered into a transaction of sale with one Takhubha Rambhai
and had executed a registered sale deed in his favour on
18.01.1983. Pursuant thereto, Mutation Entry No. 949 came to be
recorded in the revenue record and was certified on 12.04.1985.
Thereafter, on 04.07.1986, the father of the petitioners
purchased two different parcels of land from their respective
owners by executing registered sale deeds in respect of Survey
Nos. 153/P and 147/P. Entries reflecting the said transactions
were also mutated in the revenue record and subsequently
certified on 26.09.1986.
5.2) He submitted that the duration between the aforesaid
transactions was more than two years and during the said period,
the father of the petitioners was not holding any agricultural
land. Therefore, proceedings came to be initiated by the Deputy
Collector. He further submitted that during the pendency of the
proceedings, specific directions were issued calling upon the
petitioners to place on record documents demonstrating that
during the interregnum period, their father was holding
agricultural land within the State of Gujarat. However, despite
such opportunity, they failed to produce a single document in
support of the said contention, which clearly establishes the fact
Page 12 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
that the father of the petitioners was not an agriculturist at that
relevant point of time. It was, therefore, submitted that the
authorities rightly concluded that at the time of entering into the
transactions for purchase of the agricultural lands, the father of
the petitioners did not possess the status of an agriculturist.
Consequently, prior permission from the competent authority
ought to have been obtained before effecting the transactions.
No such permission or certificate was produced on record. In the
absence of any documentary evidence establishing his status as
an agriculturist, the authorities were fully justified in cancelling
the mutation entries recorded in the revenue record.
5.3) Learned AGP Mr. Rami further submitted that so far as the
contention regarding delay in initiation of the proceedings is
concerned, immediately upon scrutiny of the relevant records by
the Deputy Collector and upon detection of the irregularities in
the revenue record, appropriate proceedings were initiated
without any inordinate delay. He submitted that a bare perusal of
the operative portion of the impugned order would reveal that
reference to Section 54 of the Act has been specifically made by
the authority concerned. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination
it can be contended that there was a delay of 22 years in
initiating proceedings for breach of the statutory provisions of
law. He further submitted that in any case, the authority
concerned has passed a well-reasoned order, which has been
confirmed by all the appellate authorities. Therefore, the
concurrent findings recorded by the authorities do not warrant
Page 13 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
6) Having regard to the record and proceedings and upon
considering the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties, it emerges from the record
that the petitioners’ father had executed a registered sale deed
dated 18.01.1983 in favour of one Takhubha Rambhai with
respect to land bearing Survey No. 249, pursuant to which
Mutation Entry No. 949 came to be mutated in the revenue
record and was subsequently certified on 12.04.1985. Thereafter,
the petitioners’ father purchased lands bearing Survey Nos. 153/
P and 147/P by registered sale deeds dated 04.07.1986 from the
respective co-owners, namely, Patel Bhikabhai Savabhai and
Patel Mohanbhai Pamabhai. Consequent upon the execution of
the said sale deeds, Mutation Entry Nos. 1167 and 1168 were
mutated in the revenue record on 29.07.1986 and came to be
certified on 26.09.1986. The record further reveals further that,
by way of exercising suo motu powers, the competent authority
initiated proceedings for cancellation of the aforesaid two
entries and ultimately cancelled the same.
6.1) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said decision,
the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector. The
Collector confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector.
Thereafter, the petitioners approached the SSRD, which allowed
the revision application, quashed and set aside the order of the
Page 14 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
Deputy Collector and remanded the matter for fresh
consideration. Pursuant to which, the Deputy Collector once
again initiated proceedings and issued a show-cause notice under
Section 54 of the Act on 07.02.2008. The issuance of the said
notice assumes significance inasmuch as it was the first notice
invoking Section 54 of the Act in relation to transactions which
had taken place in the year 1986. Thus, the record clearly
indicates that proceedings under Section 54 came to be initiated
after a lapse of approximately 22 years from the date of the
execution of registered sale deed. Ultimately, the Deputy
Collector held that there was a breach of Section 54 of the Act
and declared the mutation entries to be null and void on account
of breach of Section 54 of the Act. The said order was challenged
by way of preferring an appeal before the Collector, who partly
allowed the appeal and interfered with certain findings.
However, in the subsequent remand proceedings, the Deputy
Collector, Rajkot substantially reiterated the said principle of law
and earlier order passed by him was confirmed. Subsequently, it
was stated that no interference was warranted in the earlier
order. The said order was once again challenged before the
Collector and confirmed by the Collector as well as SSRD and
therefore, the present petition is filed.
6.2) During the course of arguments, learned advocate for the
petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that since
beginning, the Government has adopted a policy in favour of
agriculturists and therefore, has issued circulars from time to
Page 15 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
time providing that if an agriculturist sells his agricultural land
and enters into another transaction within a period of 180 days,
in that event, a certificate to that effect is required to be issued
in his favour. During the interregnum period, notwithstanding
the fact that he has already sold his agricultural land, he remains
entitled to purchase another agricultural property.
6.3) The submissions have been canvassed essentially on the
ground that there is gross delay in the initiation of the
proceedings. It has been contended that although no specific
period of limitation is prescribed under the statute, such
proceedings are required to be initiated within a reasonable
period of time. In the absence of any statutory provision
prescribing a time limit, if proceedings are initiated after an
inordinate delay, the same are liable to be quashed and set aside.
6.4) It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha, reported in 10 GLR
992, wherein it has been held that proceedings for breach of
statutory provisions and/or RTS proceedings are required to be
initiated within a reasonable period of time and such reasonable
period ordinarily cannot be extended beyond two years. It
emerges from the record that the father of the petitioners
purchased the land in question in the year 1986, pursuant to
which the relevant revenue entries came to be mutated in the
revenue record. However, the said entries were taken into suo
motu revision by the revenue authority in the year 1992, i.e.,
Page 16 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
after a lapse of six years. Furthermore, the proceedings were
initially initiated with a view to cancelling the revenue entry that
had been mutated on the basis of the registered sale deed. It is
also an admitted position of fact that the sale deed executed by
and between the parties continues to remain in force and till
date, no order declaring the said registered sale deed invalid or
cancelling the same has been passed by any competent Civil
Court.
6.5) In the case of Patel Raghav Natha vs. State of Gujarat
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken the aforesaid view, and
the same principle has thereafter been reiterated in numerous
decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this
Court. It further emerges from the record that the proceedings
were initially initiated under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land
Revenue Rules and were carried forward up to the stage of the
Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD). Thereafter, the
matter came to be remanded to the authority concerned. While
cancelling the revenue entry, the authority concerned held that
there was a breach of Section 54 of the Act solely on the ground
that the petitioners were not agriculturists at the time of
entering into the transaction. It is also an admitted position of
fact that at that relevant point of time, no separate or
independent inquiry for the alleged breach of Section 54 of the
Act had been initiated by the competent authority. Without
affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties, the
authority concerned proceeded to render findings regarding the
Page 17 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
alleged breach on the basis of certain factual aspects arising in
altogether different proceedings. Therefore, it can safely be
concluded that there was a clear cross-utilization of powers by
the authority concerned while exercising jurisdiction in the
proceedings in question.
6.6) It is a well-settled principle of law that when proceedings
are initiated under a particular provision of law, the authority
concerned cannot arrive at a conclusion on the basis of an alleged
breach of a provision contained in another enactment. It is a
statutory requirement that once a registered document is placed
before the competent authority, the revenue authority is duty-
bound to mutate the corresponding entry in the revenue record.
Unless and until the transaction evidenced by such registered
document is annulled by a competent Civil Court, the revenue
authority has no jurisdiction to cancel or disturb the revenue
entry mutated on the basis of the said registered document.
6.7) At this juncture, I would like to rely and refer upon certain
judicial pronouncements, the principles laid down therein being
squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case of
Janardan D. Patel vs. State of Gujarat , reported in 1996 (0)
AIJEL-HC 205413 , this Court has observed as under:
‘’8. It cannot be gainsaid that revisional powers under the relevant
provisions contained in Rule 108(6) of the Rules are akin to those
contained in Section 211 of the Code. What applies to Section 211 of
the Code would apply with equal force to Rule 108(6) of the Rules.
Page 18 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
10. That brings me to the submission to the effect that the revenue
authorities have no jurisdiction to decide whether or not a
transaction is in contravention of any statutory provision contained
in any other enactment. It may be noted that revenue authorities
with respect to mutation proceedings in the revenue records
popularly known as RTS proceedings are invested with limited
powers regarding maintenance of revenue records for fiscal purposes
and making mutation entries therein on certain contingencies.
Relevant provisions are found in Chapter 10A of the Code. It is not
necessary to refer to the entire scheme of that Chapter. The relevant
provisions contained therein are Sections 135C, 135D, 135E, 135J
and 135L. Section 135C thereof requires reporting of acquisition of
rights in properties in revenue record. Section 135D requires
maintenance of the register of mutations and the register of
disputed cases. In Sub-section (3) thereof it has been provided that, if
any objection to any mutation entry is made in writing to village
accountant, it has to be entered in the register of disputed cases with
necessary particulars. Sub-section (4) thereof requires recording of
orders disposing of such objections in the register of mutations.
Section 135E casts obligation on persons to furnish the requisite
information with respect to properties reflected in revenue records.
Section 135J raises presumption of correctness of entries in revenue
records. Section 135L(2) is relevant. It reads:
‘’The correctness of the entries in the record of rights and
register of mutations shall be inquired into and the
particulars thereof revised, by such revenue officers and in
such manner and to such extent and subject to such appeal
as the State Government may from time to time by Rules
prescribe in this behalf.
Its bare perusal clearly goes to show that what is to be
inquired is the correctness of the entries in the record of
rights and the register of mutations in accordance with the
Rules framed in that regard. It thus becomes clear that
revenue authorities exercising powers with respect to RTS
proceedings are invested with limited powers. They cannot
assume to themselves certain powers not conferred on
them by law. An authority having a limited jurisdiction
cannot obviously expand its jurisdiction nor can assume
jurisdiction not conferred on it by law. In that view of the
mailer, it has no power to decide the validity of a
transaction on the touchstone of a statutory provision
occurring in some other enactment.
11. If any such question arises, the matter should be referred to the
Page 19 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
authority empowered to deal with under the said other enactment.
For example, the validity of a transaction on the basis of Section 63
of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948 (the
Tenancy Act for brief) is sought to be challenged. That question
cannot be decided by revenue authorities in RTS proceedings. In such
situation, the correct procedure to be followed would be to refer the
matter to the authority empowered under the Tenancy Act for his
decision. The necessary mutation entry may be made only after the
decision of that authority under the Tenancy Act is received. It
would, however, not be open to revenue authorities in RTS
proceedings to decide that question.’’
6.8) Further, in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Hussainbhai
Satarbhai Meman , reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 249387 , the
observations made in paragraph Nos. 107, 108, 110, 119, 120, 128
are reproduced hereinbelow:
‘’107. The Division bench judgment of this Court in Chandulal
Gordhandas Ranodriya2 was noted, wherein the question was of
delay in initiation of the action under Section 84C of the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The relevant observations
in paragraph Nos. '12' and '13' whereof are noted hereinunder :-
"12.Indisputably, the land in question is a new tenure land, to
which the provisions of Section 43 of the Act are applicable. It is
also well settled that if a person wants to get the land
converted from new tenure to old tenure, then as per the
Government Resolutions passed from time to time and other
provisions of the Act, the Collector has to determine the amount
of premium due and payable by the person who seeks
conversion and as per the guidelines laid down such amount
determined by the Collector if is paid, then necessary orders are
being passed by the authorities converting the land from new
tenure to old tenure thereby lifting the restrictions as imposed
under Section 43 of the Act. It is also well settled that question
is if the land is transferred in violation of the provisions of
Section 43 of the Act, then such transactions could definitely be
termed as void transactions. However, the question whether
such void transactions could be annulled at any point of time
and whether the authorities could be justified in taking over the
possession of the land for the purpose of vesting in the
Page 20 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
Government at any point of time.
108. What would be the reasonable time as explained by the Apex
Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation v. C.C.
Santhakumar55 was taken note of in Chandulal Gordhandas
Ranodriya2 in the following manner in paragraph No. '16' as under :-
"16. In the case of Employees State Insurance Corporation
v. C.C. Santhakumar55 reported in 2007(1) SCC 584, the
Supreme Court has elaborately explained this principle of
action to be taken within a reasonable period of time. It
would be appropriate for us to quote paragraph Nos.35,
36, 37, 38, 39 and 40.
"35. A "reasonable period" would depend upon the factual
circumstances of the case concerned. There cannot be any
empirical formula to determine that question. The
court/authority considering the question whether the
period is reasonable or not has to take into account the
surrounding circumstances and relevant factors to decide
that question.
36. In State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (1969 (2) SCC
187) it was observed that when even no period of
limitation was prescribed, the power is to (2007) 1 SCC 584
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1825/2019 CAV JUDGMENT
DATED: 14/10/2024 undefined be exercised within a
reasonable time and the limit of the reasonable time must
be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of
the order which was sought to be varied. This aspect does
not appear to have been specifically kept in view by the
Division Bench. Additionally, the points relating to
applicability of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands
(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and even if it is held
that the Act was applicable, the reasonableness of the
time during which action should have been initiated were
also not considered. It would be hard to give an exact
definition of the word "reasonable". Reason varies in its
conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual
and the times and circumstances in which he thinks. The
reasoning which built up the old scholastic logic stands
now like the jingling of a child's toy. But mankind must be
satisfied with the reasonableness within reach; and in
cases not covered by authority, the decision of the Judge
usually determines what is "reasonable" in each particular
Page 21 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
case; but frequently reasonableness "belongs to the
knowledge of the law, and therefore to be decided by the
courts". It was illuminatingly stated by a learned author
that an attempt to give a specific meaning to the word
"reasonable" is trying to count what is not a number and
measure what is not space. It means prima facie in law
reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the
actor, called upon to act reasonably, knows or ought to
know. (See: Municipal Corpn. Of Delhi v. Jagan Nath Ashok
Kumar (1987 (4) SCC 497) and Gujarat Water Supply &
Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat ) (P) Ltd. (1989
(1) SCC 532). As observed by Lord Romilly, M.R. in
Labouchere v. Dawson (41 LJ Ch 472) it is impossible a
priori to state what is reasonable as such in all cases. You
must have the particular facts of each case established
before you can ascertain what is reasonable under the
circumstances. Reasonable, being a relative term is
essentially what is rational according to the dictates of
reason and not excessive or immoderate on the facts and
circumstances of the particular case.
37. These aspects were highlighted in Collector and Others v. P.
Mangamma and Others (2003 (4) SCC 488).
38. As observed in Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal (2002 (1)
SCC 134), it is "looking at all the circumstances of the case; a
"reasonable time" under ordinary circumstances; as soon as
circumstances will permit; so much time as is necessary under
the circumstances, conveniently to do what the contract
requires should be done; some more protracted space than
'directly'; such length of time as may fairly, and properly, and
reasonably be allowed or required, having regard to the nature
of the act or duty and to the attending circumstances; all these
convey more or less the same idea".
39. According to Advanced law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Aiyar
3rd Edition, 2005 reasonable time means as follows:
"That is a reasonable time that preserves to each party the
rights and advantages he possesses and protects each
party from losses that he ought not to suffer.
Page 22 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
"Reasonable Time" is defined to be so much time as is
necessary, under the circumstances, to do conveniently
what the contract or duty requires should be done in a
particular case.
If it is proper to attempt any definition of the words
"reasonable time", as applied to completion of a contract,
the distinction given by Chief Baron Pollock may be
suggested, namely, that a "reasonable time" means as
soon as circumstances will permit.
In determining what is a reasonable time or an
unreasonable time, regard is to be had to the nature of the
instrument, the usage or trade or business, if any, with
respect to such instrument, and the fact of the particular
case.
The reasonable time which a passenger is entitled to
alighting from a train is such time as is usually required by
passengers in getting off and on the train in safety at the
particular station in question. A reasonable time, looking
at all the circumstances of the case; a reasonable time
under ordinary circumstances; as soon as circumstances
will permit; so much time as is necessary under the
circumstances, conveniently to do what the contract
requires should be done; some more protracted space than
"directly" such length of time as may fairly, and properly,
and reasonably be allowed or required, having regard to
the nature of the act or duty and to the attending
circumstances; all these convey more or less the same idea.
Reasonable time always depends on the circumstances of
the case. (Kinney) It is unreasonable for a person who has
borrowed ornaments for use in a ceremony to detain them
after the ceremony has been completed and the owner has
demanded their return. (AIR 1930 Oudh 395).
The expression "reasonable time" means so much time as is
necessary under the circumstances to do conveniently what the
contract or duty requires should be done in a particular case".
[See: Joseph Severance v. Benny Mathew (2005(7) SCC 667)]
40. In all these cases at hand the factual aspects have not been
examined, because the grievance appears to have been focused
on the applicability of Section 77.(1A) (b)."
Page 23 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
110. Taking note of the law discussed in Chandulal Gordhandas
Ranodriya2, the Division Bench of this Court in Bharatbhai
Naranbhai Vegda25 has further proceeded to note another Division
Bench judgment in Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar45, which also pertains to
Section 54 of the Ordinance, 1949 and the question wherein was of
reasonable time to initiate action under Section 75 of the Ordinance,
1949 for summary eviction of the occupant, transfer in whose favour
was alleged to be invalid. While dealing with various contentions
about the validity of the transaction and the effect of the same due
to the delay, it was noted therein that at the time when the
transaction was executed and the entry was mutated in the revenue
record, the petitioner had merely submitted a certificate issued by
the Talati of village certifying that the petitioner was preparing agri-
tools. However, at that stage, the authority did not demand any
other details or clarification from the petitioner and/or did not
initiate any action. The State authorities allowed the transaction to
operate for 17 years. Subsequently, when the action to annul the
transaction came to be initiated after 17 years, the petitioner raised
objection on the ground that the action was unsustainable because
of the inordinate delay and that since the time when the transaction
was entered into, he had put the land-in question to the agricultural
use only, and further the status and the nature of the agricultural
land had been retained and maintained by the transferee. Thus, in
the facts and circumstances of that case, considering the aforesaid
aspects of the matter specifically that the transferee had not
changed the nature or status of the land and also has incurred
expenditure to improve the quality of soil, it was held therein that
the aforesaid factors would be relevant and would deserve due
consideration. It was, thus, observed in paragraph No. '20' as under :-
"20. Even if the concept that the void action cannot be
validated on the ground of belated action is applied in present
case, then also, in view of the special facts and circumstances of
present case it would be appropriate to take into account the
peculiar facts of present case which emerge from the record
viz:-
(a) during the entire period of 17 years the vendor has not taken
out any action in law against the transaction and any suit or
proceeding for declaration or for any other relief does not
appear to have been filed by the vendor.
(b) the petitioner was an agricultural labourer at the time when
the transaction was executed and was tiling and cultivating
various agricultural lands.
(c)The petitioner was also artisan i.e. engaged in the activity of
preparing agri-tools.
Page 24 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
(d) more important is the fact that even after purchasing the
land in question the petitioner has, as claimed by him, continued
to use the land for agricultural purpose and the status or nature
of the land in question as agricultural land is not changed and it
continues to be agricultural land (said factual assertion by the
petitioner has not been disputed by the respondents and any
contrary evidence is not placed on record)
(e) the petitioner has also claimed that he has incurred
substantial expenditure in improving quality of soil.
(f) another important factor which, in the facts of present case,
has emerged is that in view of the orders of the authorities it is
only the vendor who will stand to gain/benefit since the land,
even after the orders, will not vest in the government in
absence of any provision providing for such consequential."
119. We may also refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Joint
Collector Ranga Reddy District21 pertaining to the proceedings of
the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Records of Rights in Land
Regulations, it was observed that the legal position is fairly well
settled by long line of decisions of the Apex court which have laid
down that even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for
the exercise of any power, the revisional power or otherwise such
power must be exercised within a reasonable period. The absence of
stipulated period of limitation makes little or no difference insofar as
the exercise of powers is concerned, which ought to be permissible
only when the power is invoked within a reasonable period. It was
noted in paragraph No. '31' as under :-
31. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is*
frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain
forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless
uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law.
Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed
for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led
to creation of third party rights, that cannot be trampled by a
belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no
cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said
must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the
orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of
power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of
fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent
will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for
otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be
tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power
in an authority."
Page 25 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
120. Paragraph Nos. 12 (12.1 to 12.3) of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy
District is also relevant to be noted hereinunder:
“12. In support of their submissions reliance was placed by
learned counsel for the respondent on the following decisions of
this Court.
12.1 In the decision in State of Gujarat vs. Patil Raghav Natha
and others [(1969) 2 SCC 187], this Court while adverting to
Sections 65 and 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879
held that though there is no period of limitation prescribed
under Section 211 to revise an order made under Section 65 of
the Act, the said power must be exercised in a reasonable time
and on the facts of the case in which the decision arose, the
power came to be exercised more than one year after the order
and that was held to be too late.
12.2 In the decision in Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs.
Fatmabai Ibrahim [(1997) 6 SCC 71], this Court while dealing
with Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1948 held that though the said section does not
prescribe any time limit for initiation of proceedings, such power
should be exercised within a reasonable time and, on the facts
of the case, the suo motu inquiry initiated under the said section
after a period of nine months was held to be beyond reasonable
time.
12.3 In the decision in Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and others
vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others [(2009) 9 SCC 352],
this Court while dealing with the power of revision under
Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 held
as follows:
“11. It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does not
prescribe the time-limit for exercise of revisional power, it does
not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather
it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because
the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a
long lapse of time. Where the legislature does not provide for
any length of time within which the power of revision is to be
exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain
that exercise of such power within reasonable time is inherent
therein.”
128. At the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that a declaration
of the sale deed as invalid was required to be made after an inquiry
which must have been conducted within a reasonable time before
Page 26 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
the Summary eviction. The sale deeds remained valid for
considerable long period of time and moreover, they are binding on
the vendors. The inquiry into the status of the predecessor-in-title of
the petitioners or the petitioners herein after such a long lapse of
time, can not be permitted, as it may not be possible to bring on
record all the relevant documents in such an inquiry(s). A transaction
hit by Section 54 is not void ab initio, but may be invalidated and
hence remains valid till it is declared invalid. The settled position of
law that the transaction which remained valid and effective for a
considerable period of time cannot be unsettled, is not to be
deviated. Further, there is no vesting contemplated under the
Ordinance, 1949 and as noted hereinbefore, the show cause notices
are prescribing for not only eviction of the transferees, but
resumption of the land in favour of the State Government by
directing for entry of the name of the State in the revenue records
after deletion of the entries, even of the original landholders while
deleting the name of the transferees, which is wholly without
jurisdiction.’’
6.9) Considering the proposition of law laid down by this Court,
the factual position stands crystallized that the property in
question was purchased by the petitioner's father in the year
1986, whereas the corresponding revenue entry was mutated in
the year 1992, i.e., after a lapse of more than six years. Thus,
there is an inordinate delay in the initiation of the proceedings.
The record further reveals that there is a cross-utilization of
power on the part of the revenue authorities. A notice under
Section 54 came to be issued after a lapse of nearly 22 years and
the proceedings in question were also initiated after an
unreasonable and inordinate delay. It is an admitted position of
fact that the forefathers of the petitioners were agriculturists
and had been engaged in agricultural activities for several years.
The petitioners are agriculturists by birth. During his lifetime, the
petitioners' father had sold the property in question, however,
Page 27 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
within a short span of time, he purchased another agricultural
land and continued to carry on agricultural operations. The
livelihood of the petitioners is dependent upon agricultural
activities and the record clearly establishes that the petitioners'
father purchased the land in question in the year 1986 and that
agricultural activities have continuously been carried on over the
said land. The aforesaid factual aspects clearly indicate that the
petitioners and their family have been engaged in agricultural
activities for decades, thereby substantiating their status as
agriculturists.
6.10) The cumulative effect of the above-stated factual aspects
irresistibly demonstrates that the petitioners are engaged in
agricultural activities. In light of the principles of law laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, as per my opinion, it
is well settled that even a void transaction if is allowed to remain
effective for considerable long period, the authority named
therein will be precluded from initiating proceedings to annul it.
It can remain effective and in existence till it is invalidated and
set aside. If its existence is allowed for a considerable period and
by a passage creating valuable rights in favour of a considerable
section of people, like the appellants in the present case, it is
difficult to accept the proposition that despite the change the
competent authority under the Act would be entitled to exercise
powers under Section 84(C) of the Act at any point of time.
7) In the circumstances, the present petition succeeds and is
Page 28 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/12168/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
hereby allowed . The impugned order dated 06.06.2018 passed
by SSRD in Revision Application No. 2/2018 and the order dated
22.12.2017 passed by the District Collector, Rajkot in Appeal No.
124/2011-12 as well as the order dated 21.06.2012 passed by the
Deputy Collector, Rajkot (Rural) in Remand Case No. 129/2100
are hereby quashed and set aside and Entry No. 1167 which was
certified on 26.09.1986 is restored in the revenue record.
8) Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
GARVITA
Page 29 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 17:05:05 IST 2026