ANIRUDHSINH NAGENDRASINH ZALA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court: Gujarat High Court
Case type: SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION
Decided on: 06-04-2026

<div> C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 29 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 29 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 2 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 29 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 42 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 2 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 42 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 42 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI =================================================== </div><table><thead><tr><th>Approved for Reporting</th><th>Yes</th><th>No</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> ANIRUDHSINH NAGENDRASINH ZALA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. =================================================== Appearance: MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,5 MR. MIHIR THAKORE, Senior Counsel with MR. MIHIR JOSHI, Senior Counsel assisted by MR.D K.PUJ(3836) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4 =================================================== Page 1 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 </div><table><thead><tr><th>CORAM:</th><th>HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> Date : 06/04/2026 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT 1. RULE, returnable forthwith. Learned advocates waive service of Rule for and on behalf of the respective parties. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matters are taken-up for final hearing. 2. Heard Mr. Dipan Desai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D.K. Puj, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 4, Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State authorities and Mr. Vimal Purohit, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 4 to 5, 7 to 9 and 10 to 13 in SCA No. 42 of 2025. 3. As the grievance raised by the petitioners in the captioned petitions are selfsame, both the petitions are heard analogously and common order is passed in both the petitions, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 4. The Petition being Special Civil Application No. 29 Page 2 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 of 2025 is taken as a lead matter and the facts stated from the said Petition, shall govern both the petitions. 5. The present petition is directed against the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 (wrongly typed as 18.12.2023) passed by the respondent no.1 – Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No. 1 of 2023 linked with Revision Application No. 2 of 2023, whereby, the respondent no.1 allowed the application for condonation of delay being No. CON/AMD/1 & 2/2023 preferred by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 (private respondents) and admitted the Revision Application No. 1 of 2023 and Revision Application No. 2 of 2023. The petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs: “6. The petitioner therefore, humbly prays that: (A) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 (wrongly typed as 18.12.2023) passed by the respondent No. 1-Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No. 1 of 2023 linked with Revision Application no.2 of 2023 (annexed at Annexure-A to the petition). (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 (wrongly typed as 18.12.2023) passed by the respondent No. 1-Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No.1 of 2023 linked with Revision Application no. 2 of 2023 (annexed at Annexure-A to the petition). Page 3 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Revision Application No.01 of 2023 linked with Revision Application no.2 of 2023 pending before the Special Secretary (Appeals). (D) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s as deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.” 6. Notice came to be issued on 03.01.2025, wherein, the matters were directed to be listed on 08.01.2025 more particularly for deciding the primary issues as per the Court, which reads thus: “When would a seller of a property be entitled to participate / initiate proceedings under the Prevention of Fragmentation Act” and “whether the seller would have any locus to object an application for condoning delay in a revision application filed by the purchaser against an order passed by the Deputy Collector declaring the sale in favour of the purchaser invalid under the provisions of Prevention of Fragmentation Act.” 7. By order dated 13.11.2025, the aforesaid issues are answered in detailed, relevant Para-22 reads thus: “22. For the reasons referred to herein-above, the primary question framed by order dated 03.01.2025 are answered thus: (i) When would a seller of a property be entitled to participate / initiate proceedings under the Prevention of Fragmentation Act? Ans: As discussed above, in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Full Bench in Dashrathbhai Patel Page 4 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 (supra), as held in Paragraph-26 to 28 [as referred above]. (ii) Whether the seller would have any locus to object an application for condoning delay in a revision application filed by the purchaser against an order passed by the Deputy Collector declaring the sale in favour of the purchaser invalid under the provisions of Prevention of Fragmentation Act? Ans. As discussed above, in Affirmative.” 8. The said order dated 13.11.2025 is the subject matter of challenge by way of F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 38715 of 2025 and allied matters, wherein, this Court is requested to take up the writ-petitions for decision on merits as early as possible and the said LPAs are pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Division Bench. It is in these scenario, the petitions are heard and decided on merits. 9. The facts emerging from the record of the present petition reads thus: 9.1. The petitioner herein claim to be the owner of the land bearing revenue Survey No. 1525/337 admeasuring 3035 sq.mtrs. and revenue Survey No. 1525/377 admeasuring 6677 sq.mtrs., both of Village: Ognaj, Tal.: Ghatlodiya, Dist.: Ahmedabad. The aforesaid lands alongwith other parcels of lands were originally owned and occupied by Kamlaben @ Babuba, daughter of Dipuji Jethiji, who sold the said lands in favour of Vaghela Jethiji Laljibhai, predecessors of the Page 5 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 respondent no.2 herein, by way of registered sale deed dated 22.08.1975 executed before the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad and the same is recorded vide entry no. 12281, which is duly produced at Annexure-B. 9.2. The sale being in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Fragmentation Act’), proceedings were initiated, wherein, by order dated 01.07.1981- the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) held that the sale in question is in violation of the Fragmentation Act and therefore, the sale stood cancelled. It was held that the occupation of the land by purchaser is illegal and that they should be evicted from the land in question, copy of which is duly produced at Annexure-C. 9.3. Considering the submissions advanced by the respective parties, the respondent no.5- Deputy Collector by order dated 01.07.1981 held that the sale of land in so far as lands bearing Survey No. 1525/337 and 1525/377 are in violation of the Fragmentation Act. However, as far as land bearing Survey No. 1525/372 is concerned, which is also sold by way of the very sale deed, there is a contiguous land bearing Survey No. 1520/367 of the purchaser, and therefore, there is no fragment and qua the said land, the same is held to be valid. Page 6 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 9.4. The entry of the said order dated 01.07.1981 passed by the Deputy Collector was mutated in the revenue record, more particularly, Form No.6 by way of entry no. 2394 on 09.04.1982 and which was duly certified on 11.05.1982, duly produced at Annexure-D. 9.5. Another entry was mutated in the revenue record, i.e. in Village Form No. 7/12 on 25.03.2009, by way of entry no. 8560, duly produced at Annexure-E. 9.6. The petitioner herein preferred an application before the Mamlatdar, Ghatlodiya to give effect of the order dated 01.07.1981, however, the said application was ‘filed’ by order dated 09.10.2020, which gave rise to an Appeal before the City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad West being RTS Appeal No. No. 373 of 2020, in which the Deputy Collector, by order dated 12.01.2022 directed to give effect of the order dated 01.07.1981 in the revenue records and accordingly, Mamlatdar, Ghatlodiya was directed to give appropriate effect in the revenue record, copy of the said order is duly produced at Annexure-F (collectively). 9.7. It was after the order dated 09.10.2020 came to be passed and before the RTS appeal was adjudicated, one Arjunji Jethaji - 3rd party/ 3rd person preferred Revision Application No. 5 of 2021 before the respondent no.1 – Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) [for short Page 7 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 ‘the SSRD’] challenging the order dated 01.07.1981 passed by the respondent no.5 under the provision of the Fragmentation Act, after a delay of around 40 years. 9.8. Neither the petitioner nor the seller were arraigned as party in the said Revision Application. The said Revision Application was not only entertained, but by order dated 25.11.2021, the respondent no.1 party allowed the Revision Application, setting aside the order dated 01.07.1981 remanding matter to the Deputy Collector for deciding afresh, copy of which is duly produced at Annexure-G. 9.9. On the basis of the aforesaid order, the respondent nos. 2 to 4 also preferred Revision Application No. 3 of 2022 challenging the order dated 01.07.1981 with respect to the land bearing Survey No. 1525/377, however, the petitioner herein was not joined as party in the said proceedings also. The SSRD passed another order dated 28.03.2022 in Revision Application No. 3 of 2022, where also the SSRD followed its earlier order dated 25.11.2021 in respect to the other land as well, copy of the order is duly produced at Annexure-H. 9.10. The said orders were passed without assigning any reasons, as to how the revision application was entertained after a period of 40 years. 9.11. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order Page 8 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 passed by the respondent no.1 dated 25.11.2021, the petitioner herein preferred Special Civil Application No. 13956 of 2022, whereas, the order dated 28.03.2022 was challenged by way of Special Civil Application No. 14129 of 2022. The aforesaid petitions were allowed by order dated 24.02.2023, whereby, the orders passed by the SSRD was quashed and set aside, directing the petitioners of the said petitions to be arraigned as parties in the proceedings before the respondent no.1 – SSRD and the respondent no.1 was directed to pass appropriate order afresh after granting opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties with respect to the contention of delay also be taken into consideration, copy of the said orders are duly produced at Annexure-I (Collectively). 9.12. After remand, the proceedings before the SSRD were restored, having given fresh number / new number to the proceedings being Revision Application Nos. 1 of 2023 and 2 of 2023. 9.13. Further, the respondent nos. 2 to 4 also filed an application for condonation of delay, in which the only contention raised was that the order dated 01.07.1981 is illegal and non-est order and nullity in eyes of law, and therefore, no limitation would apply to such order and in view thereof, the order was not sustainable because the land Page 9 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 in question was not a fragmented land, copy of the delay condonation application is duly produced at Annexure-J. 9.14. The petitioner filed objections to the delay condonation application, so also filed written objections pointing out factual aspects with respect to the substantial delay of 40 years, which cannot be condoned, copy of the same is duly produced at Annexure-K. 9.15. The learned SSRD by order dated 28.07.2023 allowed the revision applications preferred by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 01.07.1981, wherein, by the said order, the respondent no.1 condoned the delay and also passed the order on merits, resultantly, setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector, copy of the order is duly produced at Annexure-L. 9.16. The petitioner herein once again was constrained to prefer SCA No. 19973 of 2023 with SCA No. 20179 of 2023, wherein, by order dated 21.08.2024, the order passed by the SSRD was quashed and set aside, directing that first the delay condonation application has to be considered and if at all the delay is required to be condoned, only then the Revision Application is to be taken up for hearing, copy of the said order is duly produced at Annexure-M. Page 10 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 9.17. That before the SSRD, petitioner herein pointed out that huge delay of 40 years in preferring the Revision Application ought not to be condoned and in the application for condonation of delay, there is not even a whisper that the revisionists were not aware about the order passed by the Deputy Collector, more particularly, because the Deputy Collector specifically recorded that, the purchasers have been issued notice and have been served with the notice and they appeared before the authority and made submissions, and therefore, because the said order has not been given effect in the revenue record, cannot be a ground to the revisionists for condonation of such a huge delay of 40 years. 9.18. Further, after the matter was taken-up for hearing on 30.11.2024, wherein, the SSRD was informed by the revision applicants that they need not to take any clarification as the order dated 21.08.2024 is self-speaking order and according to them, it includes the directions to the SSRD to decide the locus aspect as well. The revisionist filed Additional Affidavit dated 30.11.2024 (pg.152), in delay condonation application, wherein, for the first time, they stated that the predecessors were not issued any notice by the Deputy Collector and the order passed by the Deputy Collector was without affording opportunity of hearing to them and they were not aware about the order passed by the Page 11 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 Deputy Collector, copy of the Additional Affidavit is duly produced at Annexure-C. The private respondents also produced the list of documents, wherein, the documents were produced to claim the lack of knowledge of the order dated 01.07.1981. 9.19. Thereafter, the hearing was conducted on 07.12.2024, wherein, the petitioner objected for taking the affidavit on record, as the same is alleged to be an afterthought only after the petitioner contended that in the entire delay condonation application, there is not a whisper that they were not issued notice and that they were not heard by the Deputy Collector and that they were not aware about the order passed by the Deputy Collector, and therefore, the revision applicants may not be permitted to put up a whole new case by filing Additional Affidavit in the midst of the arguments. None the less, the SSRD took the Additional Affidavit on record and ultimately passed the impugned order dated 18.12.2024, while accepting the locus of the petitioner, condoned such a huge delay of 40 years in preferring the Revision Application and admitted the Revision Application and fixed the Revision Application on 06.01.2025. The aforesaid has given rise to the filing of the present petition with the reliefs as stated herein-above. Page 12 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER : 10.1. Mr. Dipan Desai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the private respondents herein in the application for condonation of delay before the learned SSRD have raised mainly three grounds / contentions, viz. (a) they were not aware of the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 01.07.1981, (b) in the proceedings before the Deputy Collector, no notice was served to them, and (c) the revenue records were also continued in their name. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that, in the order passed by the learned Deputy Collector dated 01.07.1981, the respondent authority recorded that the notices were sent to the parties and the order was passed, based on the documents produce by the respective parties. 10.2. It is submitted that, the original application seeking condonation of delay preferred by the private respondents did not mention that the private respondents were not aware about the order passed the learned Deputy Collector dated 01.07.1981, however, the same is improvised by filling Additional Affidavit stating that the private respondents herein were not aware of the said order passed by the learned Deputy Collector and that they were not served and placing reliance upon the documents produced on record. Page 13 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 10.3. It is submitted that, such statements are false and all the three grounds raised by the private respondents seeking condonation of delay of 40 years are contrary to the record and false. 10.4. It is submitted that the order of the SSRD is erroneous both on facts and law, condoning the delay of 40 years in preferring such application. 10.5. It is submitted that the Deputy Collector in its order dated 01.07.1981 held that the sale of land in so ar as lands bearing survey no. 1525/337 and 1525/377 are in violation of the Fragmentation Act, as the said lands are fragments. However, as far as the land bearing Survey No. 1525/372 is concerned, which is also sold by very sale deed, there is a contiguous land bearing survey no. 1520/367 of the purchaser, and that there is no fragment, and hence qua the said land, the same is not held invalid. 10.6. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the impugned order came to be passed without taking into appropriate consideration the documents on record and it is now not open for the respondents to say that no notice was issued to the private respondents and further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned SSRD is required to be quashed, as without assigning proper reason, a huge delay of 40 years is condoned. Page 14 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 11. It is pertinent to note that the learned counsels appearing for the private respondents or State have not filed Affidavit-in-Reply nor written submissions, in view thereof, the oral submission made by the learned counsel during the course of hearing are thus: SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS : Submissions on behalf of Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel : 12.1. Mr. Thakore, learned Senior Counsel also appearing with Mr. Puj, learned advocate for the private respondents, submits that the facts produced on record by Additional Affidavit by the petitioner are not placed on record. 12.2. Reliance is placed on the sale deed produced at page-42 to 45. 12.3. It is submitted that, the respondents were not present when the order came to be passed by the learned Deputy Collector dated 01.07.1981. 12.4. It is submitted that as provided under Section 9 of the Fragmentation Act, the respondents are still in possession and no action is taken by the State Government to evict them. It is submitted that, there is a delay of 6 years in Page 15 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 passing the impugned order dated 01.07.1981, wherein, the sale deed is of the year 1975. Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in the case of Gordhanbhai Bikhabhai Kodi v/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2016 (0) AIJEL-HC-236185 (para- 3). 12.5. Placing reliance on the same, it is submitted that the powers cannot be exercised by the respondent authority beyond the reasonable period. In the facts of the present case, the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 01.07.1981, is passed after a lapse of more than 6 years and the same is barred by delay and latches. 12.6. Reliance is placed on the entry no. 2394 dated 09.04.1982, wherein, according to the respondents, no notice is issued to them. Mr. Thakore, learned Senior Counsel further relied on the partition entry- mutation entry no. 4126 dated 18.02.1995, wherein, the land is not stated to be a fragmented land. 12.7. Reference is made to the revenue receipts, which are paid by the private respondents, the same are produced on record. On 20.02.2020, petitioner made an application for mutation of his name in the revenue record, which was rejected by an order dated 09.10.2020 by the City Mamlatdar, which was challenged by the petitioner by way of RTS Page 16 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 Appeal No. 373 of 2020, wherein, in the said Appeal, present private respondents are arraigned as party respondents. 12.8. The respondents’ cause of action arose by filing Revision Application No. 5 of 2021. Reliance is placed on the Additional Affidavit, duly produced at page-152. Reliance is also placed on the zoning certificate issued by the Corporation (pg.248). 12.9. To substantiate his submissions, Mr. Thakore, learned Senior Counsel relied on the decisions, (I) in the case of N. Balakrishnan v/s. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, (II) In the case of Heirs of Decd Motiben v/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2018(0) AIJEL-HC-239919 and (III) In the case of N. Balaji v/s. Virendra Singh and others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 312. Placing reliance on the aforesaid position of law, wherein, it is held that, while considering an application for condonation of delay, the same should receive a liberal construction, so as to advance substantial justice. In every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, however, the same is not enough to turn down the plea and shut the door against such litigant. It is reiterated that in the facts of the present case, in absence of knowledge about the order dated 01.07.1981 passed by the learned Deputy Collector, the respondents herein could not approach the competent Page 17 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 authority to challenge the said order. It is only after the petitioner herein approached the competent authority for implementation of the order dated 01.07.1981 and arraigned the private respondents herein as party respondents that it came to the knowledge of the private respondents with respect to the order dated 01.07.1981 passed by the learned Deputy Collector and in view thereof, upon such knowledge, the private respondents have challenged the said order before the learned SSRD, wherein, the delay is condoned, considering the contentions raised by the private respondents. 12.10. It is also submitted that, the private respondents herein are in continuous possession of the land in question and that the draft Town Planning Scheme is published and in view thereof, as held in the case of Heirs of Decd Motiben v/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2018(0) AIJEL- HC-239919 the proceedings under the Fragmentation Act are of no consequence. Submissions on behalf of Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel : 13.1. Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.D.K. Puj, learned advocate appearing for the private respondents submitted that, the owner has no locus to challenge the impugned order, having pocketed the money for Page 18 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 the sale. It is submitted that, the aforesaid is results in the principle of in pari delicto. 13.2. It is submitted that, the object of Article-226 of the Constitution of India, is equitable and to assist honest persons. 13.3. It is submitted that the land was sold in the year 1975 by the petitioner’s grandmother and the transaction was declared void in the year 1981 and that grandson applied for implementation of the order dated 01.07.1981 in the year 2020 and because the valuation of the land in question have gone-up/ increased. 13.4. It is submitted that the private respondents have paid the sale amount and are in continuous possession of the land in question. In view thereof, at the instance of grandson, where the vendor – grandmother have never took any objection at any stage, the order of competent authority may not be interfered and the only thing that is done is the only contention is that the delay is condoned. 13.5. It is submitted that the private respondents have a good prima-facie case, wherein, the order under Section 9(1) of the Fragmentation Act is passed after 6 years and as per Section 9(2) and 9(3) of the Fragmentation Act, they are not enforced, neither the penalty has imposed on owner nor the Page 19 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 possession is taken over from the private respondents. 13.6. It is submitted that the petitioner / owner has failed to implement the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 01.07.1981. The mutation entries of heirs are entered continuously and equities are created in favour of the private respondents, though petitioner has the legal rights to seek relief but he did not choose to do so from the year 1981 to 2020. 13.7. It is submitted that the discretionary relief for condonation of delay has been granted by the authority. 14.1. Mr. Desai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in rejoinder, reiterated the contentions raised earlier and further added that the private respondents have slept over their rights for 40 years and now saying that the delay of 6 years is not tenable on merits, is objected by the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that, while considering the application for condonation of delay, merits of the matter are not to be considered. 14.2. To substantiate his submissions, Mr. Desai, learned advocate relied on the decisions rendered in (I) AIR 2024 SC 1884, (II) 2004 (10) SCC 598, (III) AIR 2005 SC 454, (IV) SLP (C) No. 54941 of 2025, (V) SCA No. 15989 of 2010 and (VI) In the case of Dashrathbhai M Patel v/s. Legal heirs of Page 20 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 Maganbhai Joitaram reported in 2011 (0) GLHEL-HC 225648 (full bench judgment). 15. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State submits that the impugned order is just and proper and does not require any interference. ANALYSIS: 16. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, following emerge: 16.1. The facts as referred to herein-above are undisputed and hence the same are not repeated. 16.2. By the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 (18.12.2024), the respondent no.1 allowed the application for condonation of delay being CON/AMD/1 & 2/2023 preferred by the private respondent nos. 2 to 4, wherein, the respondent no.1 in para-5.5 of the impugned order accepted the locus of the petitioner herein, while condoning the delay of 40 years, wherein, delay is condoned mainly only on the ground that the Revision Application should be decided on merits and cannot be disposed of, merely on technical issue of delay. The aforesaid has given rise to the filing of the present Petition, wherein, the petitioner herein submits that the delay of 40 years ought not have been condoned by the respondent no.1. Page 21 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 16.3. It emerges from the record that, the order dated 01.07.1981 passed by the respondent- Deputy Collector at page-50 records that, upon inquiry by the team of record of the rights informed that there is a breach of Section 9 of the Fragmentation Act, and therefore, appropriate steps are required to be taken. Upon powers conferred by the Collector, by notification dated 21.05.1981 and upon issuance of the statutory notice in accordance with the rules to the respective parties, the parties were also present, wherein, the oral as well as documentary evidences were produced on record. The notice and intimation of order was also sent on 19.10.1981, which is recorded on top of left-hand side of the order. 16.4. The private respondents have produced the said order at page-235, which forms the part of the list of documents at page-222 of the present petition, produced by the private respondents before the revisional authority, wherein, the said order appears at item no.3, is ticked/ sent to Jethuji Laluji, i.e. predecessor of the private respondents herein. In absence of any document to prove the contrary, the knowledge of the order dated 01.07.1981 is to be accepted on demurrer, on perusal of the records. 16.5. The effect of the order dated 01.07.1981 was given in the revenue record by way of entry no. 2394, the same Page 22 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 was posted on 09.04.1982 and certified on 11.05.1982. The same is also further recorded in the promulgation entry mutated on 25.03.2009 by way of entry no. 8560 (pg.52), which records that the sale is declared illegal. 16.6. Copy of plaint of the Regular Civil Suit No.187 of 2012 which is produced at pg.462 also mentioned the revenue records, wherein, the same was a partition suit between the family members, wherein, private respondents herein are 1/1/1, 1/1/1/1 to 1/1/1/4, wherein, there is a reference of survey numbers at pg-471 and also mutation of entry no. 2394 (incorrectly mentioned as 2395, pg.474). That deceased Amarsinh Jethiji Vaghela is represented by the heirs, i.e. Sajanba Amarsinh Vaghela, Vikramsinh Amarsinh Vaghela, Ghanshyam Amarsinh Vaghela and Shambhuji Amarsinh Vaghela as defendant nos. 1/1/1 to 1/1/1/4. In the plaint itself, it was stated in para-4 that, ‘The Ld. Deputy Collector, vide Entry No. 2395, has passed an order declaring the sale of the said Survey No. measuring 1.13 Guntha as null and void and ordered a penalty of 50% against the selling owner. Along with this, an order has been passed for recording the name of the vendor in the revenue records in place of the occupant. Thus, it is established prima facie that the defendants are conducting transactions in collusion with each other.’. Thus, the Deputy Collector has declared the sale deed Page 23 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 as illegal and void and the same is recorded by entry no. 2395 of Survey No. 1/13 Guntha. The survey numbers of the land in question are included in the plaint at page-468 of the petition. The aforesaid suit was filed on 02.03.2012, which was dismissed for non-receipt of notice to the respondent nos. 17 to 23. The notice was also served to the private respondents herein, who were the party defendants in the aforesaid Suit proceedings, wherein, there is a reference of mutation of entry no. 2394. 16.7. The petitioner herein by way of additional affidavit has placed on record the Village Form Nos. 6 and 7/12 extract. From the said record, it transpires that in the year 2009, in the Village Form No. 7/12 in the second right column, there is entry of the order passed by the Deputy Collector declaring sale to be invalid (Annexure-P-1). Further, in the same year, i.e. in the year 2009, there is an entry no. 8560 in the Village Form No.6 recording the fact about the order dated 01.07.1981, declaring the sale to be invalid and the said entry is certified (Annexure-P-2). It is further recorded that 135-D notice has been issued and the same has ben served upon the private respondents. 16.8. Thereafter, in the year 2012 also, in the Village Form No. 7, details are given in boja and other rights, with regard to the order passed of declaring the sale to be invalid Page 24 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 (Annexure-P-3). On 25.09.2012, in Village Form No.6 there is a specific entry no. 10232 with regard to the order dated 01.07.1981. The entry further records that the said entry has been certified, after serving of notice through the Talati and taking statements and recording the Panchnama and also affidavits of the private respondents. That even Village Form No.7 as on dated 16.05.2012 also records the entry with regard to the order of the Deputy Collector declaring the sale to be invalid as on 16.05.2012 (Annexure-P-5). Even in the latest village form no.7 of the year 2025 also records the entry with regard to the order of the Deputy Collector declaring the sale to be invalid (Annexure-P-6). 16.9. It further transpires that, while disposing of land bearing Survey No. 1525/372, the private respondents have specifically disclosed in the sale deed that they have verified the Entry No. 8560 dated 25.03.2009, and when the said entry verified, the later part of the said entry is with regard to the land in question viz. Survey No. 1525/377. The aforesaid demonstrates the knowledge of the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 01.07.1981 to the private respondents, which is contrary to their stance in Additional Affidavit. 17.1. Upon perusal of the application for condonation of Page 25 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 delay filed by the private respondents duly produced at Annexure-J, pg.71, wherein, in the said application in para- 1.5 stated thus: “Since the sale of the said land was in violation of the fragmentation, proceedings were initiated under the Fragmentation Act and in this regard Entry No. 2394 was made in the village records. In respect of the breach of the Fragmentation Act in the sale of the said land, the Ld. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Ahmedabad, vide Order No. CON/SR/1443 dated 01/07/1981, passed an order declaring the sale executed in favor of us, the applicants, as invalid and an order of eviction was passed by treating the possession of the vendee as illegal. Upon being dissatisfied (aggrieved) by the said order, the present Revision Application is submitted before Your Honour.” 17.2. It is further stated in para-2 that, there is a delay in filing the Revision Application, however, the application may not be dismissed on the technical ground of delay, but be decided on its own merits. 17.3. Though the petitioner herein vehemently objected before the revisional authority with respect to the permission of taking the additional affidavit on record filed by the private respondents herein, the SSRD has taken on record the said additional affidavit (Annexure-N, page-152), wherein, the private respondents have taken a contrary stance to that of the original application seeking condonation of delay having stated that, the private respondents have no knowledge about the said order and have stated in para-6 completely contrary Page 26 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 stance to that of the original application have been taken, wherein, it is stated that, the private respondents herein are not aware of the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 01.07.1981 and that its’ a cyclostyled order, coupled with the other documents that were produced with the said Affidavit, to substantiate the reason of delay of around 39-40 years in approaching the competent Court. It was further stated that, in absence of prescribed any period of limitation under Section 35 of the Act, the private respondents have preferred the application within a period of reasonable time of acquiring the knowledge of the order dated 01.07.1981. The said order having passed after a period of 6 years is also barred by delay and latches. 17.4. In the opinion of this Court, the order dated 01.07.1981 passed by the Deputy Collector was well within the knowledge of the private respondents as referred to herein-above. In view thereof, the contentions of the private respondents, where such a delay of 40 years is sought to be condoned by making an endevaour to make out a case that, private respondents were not in the knowledge of the order dated 01.07.1981, is contrary to the record and the same is not believable. 17.5. That some of the documents which were produced before the SSRD were sufficient for the SSRD to give a Page 27 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 thoughtful consideration with respect to the delay of 40 years that occurred in filing the Revision Application. 17.6. The very edifice to seek condonation of delay is the lack of knowledge of the order dated 01.07.1981, however, the revenue record reflects otherwise. The contention of the private respondents in delay condonation application with respect to the order dated 01.07.1981 passed by the Deputy Collector not being recorded in the revenue records is contrary to the record available, as referred to herein-above. 17.7. It is well settled principle of law that, while considering an application for condonation of delay, the superior Court as such should not disturb the findings of the authority having exercised its discretion, however, the same is coupled with the fact whether sufficient cause is made out by the person seeking condonation of delay especially when in the facts of the present case the delay of 40 years is to be condoned. In absence of any time limit provided for considering an application for condonation of delay, the same to be filed within a reasonable period. The parties are not permitted to resort to dilatory tactics to seek such remedy. Hence, the discretionary powers exercised by the authority are unwarranted. 17.8. For an order which is not given effect to by the Page 28 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 State Government, for non-implementation of its own order and for the equities having been created by the private respondents themselves, would not in any manner give the private respondents right to seek undue benefit in the garb of non-implementation of the order of the Deputy Collector dated 01.07.1981 and having challenged the same after 40 years, would not create any right in favour of the private respondents. 17.9. Any order /even an order being null and void and an invalid order, would also be required to be quashed and set aside by a competent forum. The contentions of the private respondents that heirship entries are mutated in the revenue record in the name of the private respondents’ heirs from 2012 onwards and subsequent mutation entries were also mutated in the revenue record. In the opinion of this Court, would also not aid the private respondents, wherein, such entries are fiscal entries and the same would not confer any title or right in their favour, merely by mutation of entries in the revenue record. 17.10. When the petitioner herein objected to the application seeking condonation of delay, the SSRD is required to deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner herein and is also required to take into consideration the documents produced on record. Page 29 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 17.11. Even if we take the case of the private respondents as it is, that the copy of the order dated 01.07.1981 passed by the Deputy Collector is not served, the entry recording the said order is duly posted in the revenue record, after following due procedure. Therefore, the knowledge is to be considered of the year 1982. 17.12. The present petitioner challenges the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in an application seeking condonation of delay preferred by the private respondents in Revision Application, whereby, delay of 40 years is condoned. Whether there is delay on the part of the petitioner is not forming a part of the impugned order or the proceedings initiated by the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, the same would not arm the private respondents for entitlement for condonation of delay of 40 years, having failed to make-out sufficient cause. 17.13. On a pointed query put by the Court to the learned AGP, to justify the finding about lack of knowledge of the order dated 01.07.1981 to the petitioner, as recorded by the SSRD in the impugned order in Para-5.6, Mr. Parikh, learned AGP is not in a position to justify the said findings, wherein, in the opinion of this Court, which is the only finding of fact in the order passed by the SSRD. It is hence clear that even the said factual finding is beyond the records Page 30 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 and there is no material available to come to such conclusion. 17.14. The reliance placed by Mr. Thakore, learned Senior Counsel on the decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v/s. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, is also mis-founded, as the said judgment is also considered in the case of Union of India v/s. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his Lr. reported in AIR 2024 SC 1884, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court considering the delay of more than 12 years and 158 days, it is held that, the Hon’ble Apex Court thought it fit not look into the merits of the matter as long as they would not be convinced that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay / inordinate delay. It is further held that, once it is held that the parties have lost his right to have the matter considered on merits, because of his own inaction for a long time, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and under such circumstances, cannot be permitted to plea that substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. It is apposite to refer to Para-22 to 27 of the said judgment, which reads thus: “22. Thus, it appears that the High Court made a reasonable suggestion to the appellants that if the possession of the suit property is handed over to the respondent, then probably the Court may consider restoring the Petition No. 2307 of 1993 which came to be dismissed for default on 10.10.2006. The Page 31 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 High Court noted as above that the learned counsel appearing for the appellants declined to hand over the possession of the suit property to the respondent herein. We reiterated the very same suggestion before the learned Attorney General that if the appellants are ready and willing to hand over the suit property to the respondent, then, despite there being a long and inordinate delay, we may consider condoning the same and remanding the matter back to the High Court so that the High Court may be in a position to hear the matter on its own merits. However, the learned Attorney General, after taking instructions from his clients, regretted his inability to persuade the appellants to hand over the possession of the suit property to the respondent. 23. In such circumstances referred to above, we were left with no other option but to call upon the learned Attorney General to make submissions as to why we should look into only the merits of the matter and condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days. 24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we made it very clear that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter as long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of such a long and inordinate delay. 25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned. This litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings. 26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is Page 32 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants.” 17.15. Reliance is placed in the case of Heirs of Decd Motiben v/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2018(0) AIJEL- HC-239919, to contend that T.P. Act overrides Fragmentation Act on all counts. In the said case, the preliminary town planning scheme was sanctioned and the land in question was a part of the T.P. Scheme. In the aforesaid set of facts, the orders passed by the revenue authorities were quashed and set aside. In the facts of the present case, the order passed by the Deputy Collector under the Fragmentation Act, dated 01.07.1981 is subject matter of challenge by the private Page 33 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 respondents herein, after a delay of 40 years, the same in no manner create any equities in favour of the private respondents. Here, the legality of the order condoning delay is being tested and not on the merits of the main matter. In the facts of the present case, the Town Planning scheme is not in any manner affecting the rights that are required to be determined under the provision of the Fragmentation Act, with respect to the ownership of the land in question. 17.16. Mr. Thakore, learned Senior Counsel also relied on the ratio laid down in the case of N. Balaji v/s. Virendra Singh and others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 312. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, it is submitted that, the exercise of discretionary powers can be interfered by the High Court only if the order passed is violative of some fundamental or basic principle of justice and fair play or suffers from any patent or flagrant error. It is submitted that, the delay occurred in filing the application for condonation of delay was required to be condoned. Considering the aforesaid judgment, the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment is a binding principle. In the opinion of this Court, in the facts of the present case, the private respondents waited for a period 40 years, to challenge an order dated 01.07.1981, though they were very well aware about the said order. It can also be inferred that the private Page 34 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 respondents waited for the equities to be created, to overreach the process of law. The aforesaid judgment relied upon by the private respondents, on the contrary supports the case of the petitioner, as the impugned order is clearly contrary to the basic principles of law, having passed a discretionary order, having chosen not to give a thoughtful consideration to the documents that were produced on record, prior to condoning the delay of 30-40 years, only on the incorrect finding of fact that the petitioner and private respondents both are having the knowledge of the order dated 01.07.1981 passed by the Deputy Collector. In the opinion of this Court, while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the Court must not start with the matter on its own merits, the Court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona-fides of explanation offered by the parties seeking condonation. It is only if sufficient cause is assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other-side is equally balanced that the Court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condonation of delay, depending upon the facts of each case. In the opinion of this Court, the present case is clearly of that an ‘excuse’ and not an ‘explanation’ and hence has to be dealt with accordingly. In the facts of the present case, the private respondents tried to shift the burden upon the petitioners herein. It is Page 35 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 only after the petitioner herein approached the competent authority for compliance of the order dated 01.07.1981, that it came to the knowledge of the private respondents, which in the opinion of this Court, is clearly an eye-wash, as can be seen upon perusal of the documents produced on record. 17.17. At this stage, it is also apposite to refer to the judgment rendered in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 191 in the case of State of Odisha & Ors. v/s. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School delivered in Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 54941 of 2025, para-17 and 21 of the said judgment reads thus: “17. Indeed, one of us [Dipankar Datta] in Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 531 authoring the judgment for a coordinate Bench adopted the view taken in Katiji (supra), Ramegowda (supra) and a host of other decisions following the same while not interfering with an order of condonation of delay passed by the relevant high court. However, it was observed that a distinction ought to be drawn between an explanation and an excuse that is proffered as cause for condonation of delay. It was also emphasized that a different approach has to be adopted while this Court is considering an application for condonation of delay in presentation of an appeal/application and when it sits in appeal over a discretionary order of the high court granting the prayer for condonation of delay. In the case of the former, whether to condone or not would be the only question whereas in the latter, whether there has been proper exercise of discretion in favour of grant of the prayer for condonation has to be examined. 21. Condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is entirely the discretion of the Court whether or not to condone delay. Despite all the Page 36 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 latitude that is shown to a State, we are of the clear opinion that the cause sought to be shown here by the State of Odisha is not an explanation but a lame excuse. No case for exercise of discretion has been set up.” In the aforesaid judgment also, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the catena of decisions and observed that, there is a distinction to be drawn between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’ that is offered as cause for condonation of delay. 17.18. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court: (a) In the case of Ram Bali v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2004 SC 2329, relevant para-8 and 9 reads thus: “8. At the outset, it is to be noted that before the High Court only two points were said to have been urged. They are as follows: (1) No witness has witnessed the incident and the accused have been falsely implicated because of enmity. (2) The accused Ram Bali Singh went to jail on 20.7.1982 for identification and he was not present at the time of incident. 9. We notice that the High Court specifically records that only two points were urged before it. It has to be noted that the statement of as to what transpired at the hearing, the record in the Judgement of the court are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statement on affidavit or by other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been erroneously recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges who have made record to make necessary rectification. That Page 37 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 is only way to have the record corrected. It is not open to the appellant to contend before this Court to the contrary.” (b) In the case of Commissioner of Endowments v/s. Vittal Rao reported in AIR 2005 SC 454, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is well settled principle that the statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the said fact. Relevant Para-18 reads thus: “18.There was some dispute as to whether the learned Advocate General himself appeared on the date when the writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge in terms of the compromise or his junior appeared. In the impugned judgment, it is stated that the State Government was duly represented by a lawyer. In State of Maharashtra V/s. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr., 1982 2 SCC 463, dealing with the practice and procedure regarding statement of fact recorded in the judgment of a court, this Court held that such a statement is conclusive and not open to be contradicted in appeal. Paras 4 to 8 of the said Judgment read: "4. When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney- General to the concession made before the High Court, Shri Page 38 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 A.K. Sen, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay before us intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and invited us to peruse the written submissions made by him in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch into an enquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. "Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation (Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaram Chetty V/s. Subramanian Chetty, AIR 1926 PC 136)." We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their Judgement that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well-settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the Judgement of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhu Sudan Chowdhari V/s. Chandrabati Chowdhrain, AIR 1917 PC 30). That is the only way to have the record correct. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an appellate court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment. (5) In R. V/s. Mellor, 1858 7 CCC 454, Martin, B. was Page 39 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 reported to have said : We must consider the statement of the learned Judge as absolute verity and we ought to take his statement precisely as a record and act on it in the same manner as on a record of Court which of itself implies an absolute verity. (6) In King-Emperor V/s. Barendra Kumar Ghose, 28 Cal WN 170, Page J. said ..........these proceedings emphasis the importance of rigidly maintaining the rule that a statement by learned judge as to what took place during the course of a trial before him is final and decisive: It is not be criticized or circumvented; much less is it to be exposed to animad version. (7) In Sarat Chandra Maiti V/s. Bibhabati Debi, AIR 1921 Cal 584 Sir Asutosh Mookerjee explained what had to be done : "It is plain that in cases of this character where a litigant feels aggrieved by the statement in a Judgement that an admission has been made, the most convenient and satisfactory course to follow, wherever practicable, is to apply to the Judge without delay and ask for rectification or review of the judgment... (8) So the Judges' record is conclusive. Neither lawyer nor litigant may claim to contradict it, except before the Judge himself, but nowhere else." The aforesaid two judgments laid down the ratio that, the findings of fact by the Courts, in the facts of the present case, the quasi-judicial authority, which is a fact finding authority, as such cannot be contradicted by way of Affidavit. The same are required to be placed before the said authority to rectify error, if any. In the facts of the present case, the contention raised by the private respondents are contrary to the record and also against the settled position of law as referred to herein-above. Page 40 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026 C/SCA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 18. Considering the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the SSRD dated 18.12.2024 (18.12.2023) in No. CON/AMD/1 & 2 /2023 (Annexure-A) condoning the delay of 40 years, without assigning any reasons and without taking into consideration the documents produced on record is such that the same is required to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set, in exercise of the powers under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. 19. Both the captioned Petitions stand allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. All the connected Civil Applications stand disposed of accordingly. (VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) Pradhyuman Page 41 of 41 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:56 IST 2026</div>