The court upheld the SSRD's decision, emphasizing the importance of timely challenges to land entries and recognizing the jurisdiction of the civil court over the matter.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.V. Patadiya on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara on behalf of respondent-State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner inter alia challenges order passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department dated 18.06.2024 more particularly whereby the SSRD rejected the application preferred by the petitioner against order passed by the Collector, dated 29.10.2020.

3. Considering the submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Patadiya and learned AGP Mr. Kanara it would appear that the issue is with regard to the land bearing Survey No. 156/2 situated at Village: Shabdalpura, Taluka: Radhanpur, District: Patan which had been allotted to late father of the petitioner. It would appear that upon demise of late father of the petitioner in the year 1991, entry no. 390 had been mutated in the revenue record on 10.01.1992 certified on 11.02.1992 wherein, since the petitioner was a minor, the name of mother of the petitioner, had been entered in the revenue record as guardian of the minor. It would appear that thereafter the legal heirs of the late father of the petitioner, except the petitioner had sought for permission to sell part of the land in question and whereas upon such permission being granted, land had been sold in the year 1995 and entry with regard to the same had been mutated in the revenue record on 28.11.1995 being entry no. 463. It would further appear that the remaining land, had been sold by the other legal heirs, in the year 2001 entry whereof had been mutated in the revenue record on 10.10.2003 being entry no. 607.

4. It would appear that while the land been sold in the year 1995 and 2001 the petitioner had approached the District level Vigilance Committee inter alia alleging that the land had been sold without any reference to the petitioner and whereas the petitioner was neither informed nor she has consulted thereto. It would appear that the Committee, while directing filing of the application, had inter alia directed the Collector as well as the DILR, Patan to take appropriate steps with regard to the complaint of the petitioner and whereas the Collector, Patan vide suo motu Revision Application No. 1 of 2020, had sought to take the entry no. 607, in suo motu revision.

5. It would appear that vide order dated 29.10.2020, the Collector, had inter alia dropped the proceedings by recalling the notice, in the suo motu proceedings and whereas being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had approached the SSRD who vide the order impugned order dated 18.06.2024 had rejected the revision application.

6. It would appear to this Court that the main reason on which the review had been rejected was on the ground that the petitioner could not show any justifiable reason for the delay which had occurred in questioning entry no. 607 after approximately 16 years of its certification. The SSRD has also noted that Regular Civil Suit No. 40 of 2021 had been preferred by the present petitioner before the Civil Court, Radhanpur. The SSRD has inter alia observed that since the civil court is seized of the matter and since the issue pertains to deciding civil rights of the parties, the revision had been disposed of subject to the final decision that would be taken by the learned Civil Court.

7. To this Court it would appear that no error whatsoever has been committed by the SSRD, rather it would appear that the Collector and the SSRD, had been charitable towards the petitioner more particularly since it would appear that entry no. 607, corelates to a sale-deed which had been entered into by the other legal heirs of late father of the petitioner in the year 2001, whereas even before the said sale, the legal heirs of late father of the petitioner had sold some parcel of the land, vide registered sale-deed dated 17.07.1995 which had been mutated in the revenue record vide entry no. 463 dated 28.11.1995. To this Court it would appear that if the petitioner