Limitation run against a subsequent purchaser for an unserved order commences from the date of knowledge.

The petitioner purchased agricultural land (Survey No. 34, Vadod, Ahmedabad) via registered sale deed on 30.10.2024

Years prior, on 21.08.2019, the Collector had rejected a Non-Agricultural (NA) use application filed by the previous owner because the land was deemed "premium liable"

When the petitioner filed new NA applications in 2025, they were rejected solely based on the 2019 order

The petitioner challenged the 2019 order before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD), but the revision was dismissed on 06.02.2026 on the grounds of delay

notably, during the pendency of these events, the State issued a Government Resolution (GR) on 08.04.2025 converting such tenures to "old tenure" (non-premium), and the Mamlatdar officially certified this change for the subject land on 12.09.2025

1. Whether the Revisional Authority (SSRD) erred in rejecting the revision application on the grounds of delay without considering the date of the petitioner’s acquisition of title and knowledge of the order

2. Whether the original order of 2019 and the subsequent rejections remained valid in light of the Government Resolution dated 08.04.2025 and the Mamlatdar’s order changing the land tenure status

The Court applied the principles of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, specifically Section 65 regarding non-agricultural use and Section 211 regarding revisional powers

It relied on the principle that limitation for a subsequent purchaser begins from the date of knowledge of an adverse order, not the date of the order itself

Furthermore, it applied the State’s Government Resolution dated 08.04.2025, which mandated that certain New/Restricted tenure lands be deemed "Old Tenure" (exempt from premium), and the precedent in Tushar Ghelani v. State of Gujarat regarding the statutory mandate for NA permissions

The Court found that the SSRD failed to recognize that the petitioner was not a party to the 2019 proceedings and only acquired a legal right to challenge the order after purchasing the property in 2024

Mechanically computing delay from 2019 was deemed arbitrary as limitation should run from the date of knowledge for a non-party

Substantively, the Court observed a significant change in the legal landscape: the GR dated 08.04.2025 and the Mamlatdar's subsequent order on 12.09.2025 officially logic-mapped the land as "old tenure," thereby extinguishing the "premium liable" justification used in the 2019 rejection

Since the original ground for rejection no longer existed under current State policy, the impugned orders were legally unsustainable

The Court held that the delay ought to have been condoned given the petitioner's status as a subsequent purchaser. It directed that if the petitioner files a fresh application for NA permission, the Collector (Respondent No. 2) must decide it in accordance with Section 65 of the Code, the Tushar Ghelani ratio, and the Government Resolution dated 08.04.2025, recognizing the land’s current status as "old tenure"

Rule was made absolute