Gujarat HC Upholds Rejection Of Land Buyer’s Challenge To 1987 Tenure Change After 24-Year Delay

The petitioner claimed to have purchased land recorded as old “A” tenure by registered sale deed dated 15 July 1985.

The Collector had ordered in 1987 that the land be treated as new “K” tenure, after issuing notice to the petitioner’s predecessor-in-title, who did not appear.

The petitioner’s sale deed was accepted after payment of deficit stamp duty in 2006.

In January 2009, the City Survey Office rejected his request to enter his name in the property card, citing the Collector’s 1987 order.

The petitioner challenged that order before the SSRD in 2011, with an application to condone delay; the SSRD rejected the revision on the ground of delay on 6 January 2012.

The petitioner then filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the SSRD was justified in refusing to condone the delay in the petitioner’s challenge to the Collector’s order dated 12 March 1987.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the land restored to old “A” tenure and his name entered in the property card, notwithstanding the delay in challenging the 1987 order.

The Court considered the petitioner’s revision under Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code and the High Court’s supervisory and writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

In deciding whether delay should be condoned, the relevant principle is that the applicant must provide a satisfactory explanation constituting sufficient cause; the longer the delay, the stronger the explanation required.

A casual or unsupported explanation does not suffice for a substantial delay.

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

The Court noted that the petitioner knew of the order by January 2009, when the City Survey Office rejected his mutation request, but he did not then pursue an appeal or otherwise challenge the rejection.

His explanation before the SSRD—that he learned of the order when inquiring about mutation—did not account adequately for the delay, and the petitioner’s counsel made no submission explaining why the revision was not time-barred.

The Court therefore found no sufficient cause to disturb the SSRD’s decision.

It did not determine the substantive merits of the petitioner’s claim to old “A” tenure or mutation of his name.

Finding no basis to interfere under Articles 226 and 227, it dismissed the petition, discharged the Rule, and vacated any interim relief.