Suppression of material facts impedes a party's ability to seek relief under prerogative jurisdiction, affecting the integrity of legal proceedings.

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 24th December, 2013 passed by Deputy Collector, order dated 28th November, 2017 passed by Collector as well as order dated 15 th/21st February, 2019 passed by Special Secretary, Revenue Department, whereby application for condonation of delay of 20 years in challenging Entry No.1852 dated 10th April, 1992 came to be rejected.

2. Facts of the case can be stated as under.

2.1 Father of the petitioner – Chanabhai Govindbhai Patel was the original owner of the land bearing Old Survey No.471 admeasuring about 40,600 Sq. Mtrs. Of land situated at Vesu, Taluka & District Surat. Father of the petitioner expired on 09th April, 1992, however before that, father of the petitioner has executed a Will dated 02nd November, 1991 in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 bequeathing the aforesaid land. Pursuant to the said Will, Entry No.1852 came to be mutated in the revenue records on 10th April, 1992.

2.2 As it appears that petitioner has filed Special Civil Suit No.47 of 2004 before Civil Court, Surat against the present respondent Nos.6 and 7 and thereafter compromise came to be arrived at between the parties in the said suit and accordingly, the said suit was disposed of on the compromise Purshish filed by the parties.

2.3 However, it appears that thereafter in the year 2011 RTS Appeal being No.218 of 2011 along with an application for condonation of delay was filed by the petitioner challenging Mutation Entry No.1852 before the Deputy Collector. However, the Deputy Collector vide order dated 24th December, 2013 rejected the application for condonation of delay.

2.4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has approached Collector, Surat by way of Revision Application No.364 of 2015. However, Collector vide order dated 28th November, 2017 rejected the application by confirming order passed by the Deputy Collector.

2.5 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, petitioner has approached Special Secretary, Revenue Department by way of Revision Application No.6 of 2018 which Revision also dismissed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department vide order dated 15th/21st February,2019.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the aforesaid relief.

4. I have heard learned advocate Mr.Hitesh Acharya for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Rohan Shah for respondent No.1 – State and learned advocate Mr.Amit Thakkar with learned advocate Mr.Hiren Pandya for respondent No.6.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Acharya for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, has made following submissions.

5.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Entry No.1852 dated 10th April, 1992 came to be posted immediately on the next date after expiry of father of the petitioner i.e. on 09th April, 1992. Learned advocate further submitted that thereby posting of the Entry on the immediate next date is without following due procedure of law and without giving sufficient notice to the concerned parties. Learned advocate for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that Entry No.1852 is thereby being posted in violation of the provisions of the Act and thus deserves to be cancelled.

5.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that as such respondent No.7 is not an agriculturist, thus his name should not be continued and thereby the Entry is required to be cancelled.

5.3 By making above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has requ