Gujarat HC Upholds Rejection Of Land Purchaser’s Challenge To 1987 Tenure Change Over Unexplained 24-Year Delay

The petitioner’s husband purchased land in Palitana by a sale deed dated 15 July 1985.

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

In 1987, the Collector had 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 applied to have her name entered in the property card in 2008; the application was rejected in 2009 by reference to the Collector’s order. In 2011, she challenged that order before the revenue authority and sought condonation of delay. The authority rejected the revision as time-barred, and the petitioner challenged that decision under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the revenue authority was justified in refusing to condone the delay in the petitioner’s challenge to the Collector’s 1987 order.

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with the revenue authority’s decision, including on the petitioner’s contention that the land’s tenure had been changed without notice to her.

Under Section 211 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, the petitioner invoked the revisional jurisdiction to challenge the Collector’s order.

An application to condone delay must provide an explanation that satisfies the deciding authority; the longer the delay, the stronger the explanation required. A casual or inadequate explanation does not constitute sufficient cause.

The High Court considered its supervisory and writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The judgment cited no precedent for these principles.

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

The Court found that her explanation—that she learned of the order when her property-card application was rejected—was inadequate, particularly because she had knowledge of the rejection in 2009 but did not pursue an appeal or other remedy then.

The Court also noted that notice of the proposed