Appellate jurisdiction cannot be exercised on merits without first adjudicating and condoning statutory delay.

The dispute concerns land in Survey No. 176, Mouje: Chorbhuj, originally owned by Bhikhubhai Suleman Jamadar.

In 1980, a portion was mutated to Petitioner No. 1 (Abbas) via Entry No. 1145, but the revenue records erroneously showed him as owner of the entire 12-acre plot.

Following Bhikhubhai’s death, Entry No. 2562 was certified on 26.12.2008, recording Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 as heirs.

Six years later, Respondent No. 4 (Petitioner No. 1’s estranged wife) challenged Entry No. 2562 before the Deputy Collector via RTS/Appeal/117/2013.

The Deputy Collector allowed the appeal and cancelled the entry despite a six-year delay and the absence of a formal order condoning said delay.

This order was upheld by both the Collector (2015) and the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) (2018).

1. Whether the Deputy Collector had the jurisdiction to allow an appeal filed after a six-year delay without first adjudicating and passing an order on the application for condonation of delay.

2. Whether the private respondents, as heirs of Petitioner No. 1, have any vested right in the subject land during the lifetime of Petitioner No. 1 under Mohammedan Law.

The Court applied Rule 108 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, which mandates that an appeal must be filed within 60 days, and any admission after this period requires the authority to record reasons for satisfy itself of "sufficient cause".

The Court followed the Supreme Court precedent in Ragho Singh v. Mohan Singh (2001), holding that an appeal filed beyond limitation without a formal order condoning delay is liable to be dismissed and any order on merits is "patently erroneous".

Regarding inheritance, the Court applied principles of Mohammedan Law as clarified in Yusufbhai Walibhai Patel v. Zubedaben Abbasbhai Patel (2026), which states that the concept of ancestral property or right by birth is foreign to Mohammedan Law, and no person has an heir until they die (nemo est haeres viventis).

The Court observed that the Deputy Collector violated statutory procedure by proceeding to decide the appeal on merits while the application for condonation of delay remained unaddressed.

Under Rule 108(5), recorded reasons for condoning delay are a prerequisite for jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the parties are governed by Mohammedan Law; therefore, the private respondents (wife and daughters of Petitioner No. 1) only possess a spes successionis (chance of succession) and cannot claim rights in the property until the demise of Petitioner No. 1.

The SSRD and Collector further erred by failing to address these specific legal contentions regarding limitation and personal law raised by the petitioners in their revision applications.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the orders of the SSRD (29.06.2018), the Collector (29.11.2015), and the Deputy Collector (14.08.2014); the Court directed the respondent authorities to revive Mutation Entry No. 2562 (dated 26.12.2008) in the revenue records within three months. Rule made absolute.