Delayed exercise of suo motu power and non-compliance with technical timelines cannot invalidate transactions absent fraud.

The petitioner purchased 6 acres of land in Village Bhorara, Kutch, via a registered sale deed in 1992

In 1996, the Deputy Collector initiated proceedings under the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act ("Fragmentation Act"), declaring the sale invalid because the remaining 34 gunthas held by the vendor (Respondent No. 5) constituted an illegal "fragment"

In 1999, the Special Secretary (Appeals) [SSRD] set aside this invalidity on the condition that the vendor apply for non-agricultural (NA) conversion of the 34-guntha fragment within six months

The vendor applied for NA permission two months past the deadline; however, the authority granted the conversion in August 2000

Despite the land being successfully converted to NA, the vendor later challenged the revenue entries in a second round of litigation, arguing that since the NA application was filed late, the original order of invalidity should be restored

The Deputy Collector and Collector rejected the vendor’s plea, but the SSRD reversed these findings and restored the invalidity of the petitioner's sale due to the vendor's delay

The court applied the principle that statutory powers (specifically suo motu revision) must be exercised within a "reasonable period" where no limitation is prescribed, a doctrine established in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha

The court applied the principle reiterated in Labhubhai Valjibhai Gajera v. Secretary (Appeals).

The court further applied the principle of equity that a party to a transaction (the vendor) cannot later challenge the validity of the sale after receiving consideration, as such conduct is mala fide

Finally, it was observed that once land is converted to non-agricultural use or included in a Town Planning Scheme, the bar under Section 8/8AA of the Fragmentation Act ceases to operate as per Mithalal Mukundchand v. State of Gujarat

The court reasoned that the SSRD’s second order was "per se illegal" because it focused solely on the vendor’s two-month delay in filing the NA application rather than the substantive fact that the land was eventually converted to NA

The court found that the vendor intentionally delayed the application to create a ground for restoring the land to himself, a conduct termed as "mala fide" and "untenable"

Applying Patel Raghav Natha, the Court noted that the original 1996 proceedings were already hit by the vice of delay

Crucially, the Court held that since the 34 gunthas had successfully become NA land by the time of the final hearing, the issue of "fragmentation" of agricultural land had become purely academic; the land could no longer be classified as an agricultural fragment under the Act

It held that a vendor cannot take advantage of his own wrong (the delay in filing the NA application) to frustrate the rights of the purchaser

The Court restored the orders of the Deputy Collector (05.03.2009) and District Collector (23.12.2013), thereby upholding the validity of the petitioner’s sale deed and the consequential revenue entries