IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a delay of 43 years in challenging a revenue order must be sufficiently explained, and the failure to challenge an order before the appropriate forum can impact the validity of subsequent entries in the revenue records.

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged (i) the order dated 28.9.2012 passed by the learned Deputy Collector in RTS Appeal No.88 of 2012, (ii) order dated 14.10.2013 passed by the learned Collector in Revision Application No.72 of 2012 and (iii) order dated 12.6.2015 passed by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/Dahod/8 of 2014. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction to the respondents to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records with respect to the land in question.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sahil M. Shah appearing for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondents No.1 to 5 and learned advocate Mr. K.T. Beladiya appearing for the respondents No.6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4.1, 6.1.4.2, 6.1.4.3, 6.1.4.4, 6.1.5, 6.1.6, 6.1.7, 7.2.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition as stated by learned advocate Mr. Sahil Shah are as under :-

3.1 That a land bearing old revenue survey No.64 was converted into new survey No.67, admeasuring 11 acres and 34 gunthas situated at village Limdi, Taluka Jhalod, District Dahod, was originally owned by one Khushantsinh Dipsinh Thakore and his name was reflected in the revenue record. The learned Collector vide order dated 22.02.1951 passed under the provisions of Gujarat Talukdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 declared one Deetabhai Vaghjibhai as a permanent tenant of the said land and name of Deetabhai Vaghjibhai was entered into revenue record vide mutation entry No.12.

3.2 Thereafter, name of said Deetabhai Vaghjibhai was shown in the revenue records from the year 1954-55 to 1963-64 and the ancestors of the petitioner viz. Devchandbhai Bhagabhai and Devabhai Khetabhai purchased the said land from Deetabhai Vaghjibhai vide sale deed dated 13.04.1964 for a sale consideration of Rs.500/- on stamp paper of Rs.4/-. According to the petitioners, their ancestors till their death and thereafter, the petitioners have been enjoying the peaceful possession of land in question since 1964 and till the date of filing of this petition and even till today. According to the petitioners, even in 7/12 extract of the land-in-question, name of the petitioners and their forefather continued to reflect till 2009.

3.3 Thereafter, an encumbrance by way of mortgage in respect of the said land for Rs.800/- was registered in the name of Limdi Co- operative Sahakari Mandli for which a mutation entry No.198 was mutated in the revenue records on 6.4.1963 and subsequently, learned Mamlatdar in the proceedings No.TAO/35/66 vide an allegedly ex-parte order dated 27.4.1968 declared the said land as a Government waste land under Section 6 of the Gujarat Talukadari Abolition Act, 1949. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioners were not given any opportunity of being heard and a mutation entry bearing No.583 dated 22.10.1969 was entered into revenue record.

3.4 As the petitioners and their forefathers name continued to reflect in the revenue records till 2009. In the year 2009, upon computerization of the revenue record by the concerned revenue authorities, a mutation entry No.4995 dated 28.03.2009 was mutated and when the petitioners checked the revenue records for the purpose of entering their names as legal heirs of the mother of the petitioner No.1, they realized that their names were not there in the revenue records against the land-in-question.

3.5 Ultimately, after consuming sometime in procuring required papers, the petitioners preferred RTS Appeal No.88 of 2012 before the Deputy Collector with an application for condonation of delay. In the aforesaid RTS appeal, the petitioners had challenged the order dated 27.04.1968 passed by the Mamlatdar in proceedings No.TAO/35/66 as well as the entry No.583.

3.6 The learned Deputy Collector rejected the said application for condonation of delay