Gross unexplained delay justifies rejection of a revision challenging land-tenure conversion.

The petitioner claimed to have purchased land in Palitana by a registered sale deed dated 15 July 1985.

In 1987, the Collector converted the land from old “A” tenure to new “K” tenure after issuing notice to the petitioner’s predecessor-in-title, who did not appear.

The petitioner’s application to enter his name in the property card was rejected in January 2009, by which time he learned of the Collector’s order.

In 2011, he challenged that order before the SSRD under Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code, seeking condonation of delay.

The SSRD rejected the revision on the ground of delay, and the petitioner challenged that decision in this petition.

Whether the SSRD was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s revision as time-barred, given the explanation offered for the delay.

Whether the High Court should interfere with the Collector’s 1987 tenure-conversion order on the petitioner’s claim that it was made without notice to him.

The petitioner invoked Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code to challenge the Collector’s order.

The Court applied the principle that condonation of delay depends on a satisfactory explanation for the delay; the longer the delay, the stronger the explanation required. A casual or insufficient explanation does not establish sufficient cause for condonation.

The petitioner challenged the 1987 order only in 2011, approximately 24 years later.

The Court noted that he had learned of the order when his property-card application was rejected in 2009, yet did not then pursue an appeal against that rejection.

His explanation before the SSRD—that he discovered the order while inquiring about mutation—did not account for the delay, and no further submission on delay was made before the High Court.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the SSRD’s refusal to condone delay and did not reach the substantive challenge to the tenure conversion.

The petition was dismissed, the Rule discharged, and any interim relief vacated.

The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner’s challenge to the 1987 order.