( 1 ) ). The appellants-original petitioners are husband and sons of late Smt. Shantaben Babulal Mehta. She purchased land bearing survey no. 18 of village-Umargam, Dist. Valsad from one Vithal Kambali on 23rd February, 1956. Mutation Entry No. 1411 was effected on 28th April, 1956. However, concerned authority made an endorsement that the said land was fragment and the sale having made in contravention of the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Act, 1948 (for short "the Act"), therefore, the said mutation entry was required to be cancelled and accordingly it was cancelled on 7th August, 1957. This was done behind the back of Shantaben without giving any opportunity of hearing to her. Shantaben died in 1976 without the knowledge that mutation entry regarding the land in question purchased by her was cancelled by the authority on 7th August, 1957. Because of this her legal heirs and representatives i. e. her husband and her sons were also in know of the fact that the mutation entry was cancelled by the authority in 1957, till 1991.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the appellants-petitioners that as soon as they came to know about the cancellation of mutation entry in 1957, they immediately filed RTS Appeal No. 100/91 before the Deputy Collector challenging the order dated 7th August, 1957 passed by the authority cancelling mutation entry regarding the land in question. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Collector, on the technical ground like limitation as he was of the opinion that there was a gross delay in filing the appeal against the order of cancelling the mutation entry without going into the merits of the case. This was challenged by the appellants-petitioners in revision being RTS Revision No. 113 of 1993 before the Collector. However, the learned Collector, by his order dated 20th January, 1994 dismissed the said revision on the ground of limitation. Hence, further revision application was filed under rule 108 (6) (a) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 before the State Government. The same was also dismissed on 2. 3. 2000 by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat.

( 3 ) THE aforesaid orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Collector, Government have been challenged by the appellants-petitioners before this court by way of Special Civil Application No. 7793 of 2000. After hearing both the learned counsel, Mr. Patel for the appellant-petitioners and learned AGP for respondents, the learned Single Judge of this court (Coram : Miss. R. M. Doshit, J.) by order dated 26. 6. 2001 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that to condone the delay is a matter of discretion and in absence of sufficient cause is shown, the authority was right in dismissing the appeals and revisions filed by the appellants-petitioners on the ground of delay as the same was not sufficiently explained. Learned Single Judge has also observed in her order that though Shantaben passed away in 1976, the appellants-petitioners do not apply for mutation for nearly 15 years after the death of Shantaben and for the first time i. e. in the year 1995 they filed an appeal. Thus, writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of limitation and the ad-interim relief granted earlier on the writ petition came to be vacated. Hence, this appeal.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. Sunil Patel for appellants-petitioners vehemently submitted that all the authorities below and the learned Single Judge have committed grave error in throwing out the case on the ground of delay. He submitted that admittedly, the mutation entry was cancelled by the concerned authority on 7th August, 1957 behind the back of deceased-Shantaben. She was not given any opportunity before cancelling the mutation entry by the concerned authority. This had never come to the notice of Shantaben till she died in 1976. So as the case with the appellants-petitioners, who are husband and sons of Sha