N. V. Anjaria, J.

Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for the petitioner - State and learned advocate Ms. Kalpna Brahmbhatt for the private respondents.

2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, is directed against order dated 17th January, 2004 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals). Thereby the Revision Application No.137 of 2002 preferred by the private respondents herein came to be allowed by setting aside order dated 16th November, 2002 of Collector, Surat, in RTS Revision Application No.198 of 2000.

3. The relevant facts may be outlined. Private respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein purchased land bearing Survey Nos.65, 66 and 67 situated at Village Dumas, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat, from one Daudbhai Mansuri - respondent No.1 herein. The said transaction was entered into upon executing registered sale deed dated 29th May, 1989. Mutation Entry NO.3166 in the revenue records pursuant to the said transaction was effected on 14th September, 1992.

3.1 It appears that after period of eight years, Collector, Surat, started suo motu proceedings against the aforesaid Entry No.3166 by registering Revision Case No.198 of 2000. By order dated 15/16th November, 2002, the Collector cancelled the said Entry by holding that there was breach of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agriculture Lands Act. The Collector further directed to initiate proceedings under Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act. These proceedings initiated in form of Case No.218 of 2002 came to be dropped by the Mamlatdar and Agriculture Lands Tribunal as per his order dated 23rd June, 2003.

4. It was against the aforementioned order dated 15/16th November, 2002 passed by the Collector that the Revision Application came to be filed by the private respondents. The Revision Application came to be allowed as per the impugned order, by which setting aside order of the Collector, confirmed the mutation of Entry No.3166.

5. The sole ground strikes fatal, obviating the necessity to go into the aspects of merits is that the State filed this petition to challenge the order of the revisional authority after long delay of one decade. No satisfactory explanation has been coming forth from the petitioner State which may justify the passage of 10 years which intervened the present challenge. The period of 10 years is too long and unreasonable delay to be countenanced in law.

5.1 In State of Gujarat v. Gamanbhai Maganbhai Patel being Special Civil Application No.9382 of 2014 decided on 12th December, 2014, facts were akin. State had filed petition after seven years without showing sufficient cause, therefor, this Court refused to entertain the petition. In Gamanbhai Maganbhai Patel this Court relied on decision of the Apex Court in Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157.

5.2 Noticing the following paragraphs, which may be reproduced hereunder,

"We have considered the respective arguments/submissions and carefully scrutinized the record. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the Court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the Legislature. At the same time, the Courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation." (Para 14)

5.2.1 It was viewed that liberal approach may be eschewed where rights of rival party have intervened,

"What needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact