Inordinate delay of forty years cannot be condoned where records establish the applicant’s prior knowledge.

The Petitioner’s predecessor sold land in Ognaj, Ahmedabad, to the Respondents’ predecessor via a registered sale deed in 1975

On 01.07.1981, the Deputy Collector declared this sale invalid under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, as it created fragments

This order was recorded in revenue entries in 1982 and 2009

In 2020, the Petitioner sought implementation of the 1981 order.

Subsequently, the private respondents filed revision applications before the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department (SSRD) in 2023, challenging the 1981 order after a delay of approximately 40 years

The SSRD, by an impugned order dated 18.12.2024, condoned the delay, primarily on the ground that the matter should be decided on merits rather than technicalities

The Petitioner challenged this condonation, alleging that the Respondents had full knowledge of the 1981 order for decades, as evidenced by revenue records and a 2012 civil suit

1. Whether the SSRD was legally justified in condoning a 40-year delay in filing a revision application without a showing of sufficient cause

2. Whether the "lack of knowledge" claimed by the private respondents constituted a bona fide explanation or a mere excuse in light of the available revenue records and prior litigation

The court applied the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, specifically Section 9 regarding the invalidity of transfers and Section 35 regarding the revisional powers of the State

It relied on the principle from Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, which dictates that a court must first ascertain the bona fides of an explanation for delay before considering the merits of the case

It further applied the distinction established in State of Odisha v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School between a valid "explanation" and a "lame excuse" for condonation of delay

Finally, the court noted that even where no limitation period is prescribed, statutory powers must be exercised within a "reasonable time"

The Court found that the SSRD failed to provide any cogent reasoning for condoning a massive 40-year delay

On facts, the Court observed that the 1981 order was not "unknown" to the Respondents; it was recorded in certified revenue entries in 1982 and 2009, and explicitly mentioned in a 2012 partition suit where the Respondents were parties

The Court rejected the Respondents' argument that the "merits" of the 1981 order (i.e., whether it was originally barred by delay) should override the current delay in filing the revision, stating that a party cannot fix their own period of limitation through inaction

The SSRD’s finding of "lack of knowledge" was deemed a factual error contrary to the record

The Court emphasized that while courts should be liberal, the rules of limitation are based on public policy, and a 40-year silence constitutes gross inaction that cannot be condoned as a "non-deliberate" delay

It held that the Respondents failed to establish "sufficient cause" for the 40-year delay and that their explanation was a "lame excuse" designed to overreach the law after equities had potentially shifted due to rising land values

The High Court set aside the condonation of delay, effectively dismissing the Respondents' revision applications as time-barred