The court ruled that the limitation period for challenging an administrative order starts from the date of knowledge and not from the date of order; delay of 33 years without adequate justification cannot be condoned.

JUDGMENT :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manan K. Paneri for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent No.1 – State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the SSRD dated 26.12.2024, whereby the SSRD has rejected the application for condonation of delay.

3. It would appear in this regard that the petitioner had challenged order passed by the Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra, dated 24.12.1990 under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, before the SSRD after a delay of approximately 33 years and since the Revisional Authority was of the opinion that the delay has not been sufficiently explained, the application for condonation of delay had been rejected.

4. The issue in question is with regard to land bearing Survey No.360 – New Survey No.609 situated at village: Jasmatpur, Ta. Dhrangadhra, Dist. Surendranagar. It appears that the land was originally admeasuring 5 Acres and 13 Gunthas and was owned by the father of the respondent No.3 herein and whereas by way of family settlement, the land had been divided into four portions i.e. 1.30 / 1.31 Acres in favour of three brothers and remaining 2 Gunthas, where the well was situated came in the share of all three brothers. The issue in question is with regard to land, which had come in favour of one Parsottam Hirjibhai Patel, admeasuring 1 Acre and 31 Gunthas and whereas the said Parsottam Hirjibhai Patel had sold 1 Acre and 8 Gunthas out of the said land by way of registered sale deed dated 10.04.1968 to one Ravjibhai Jerambhai. It appears that the said Ravjibhai Jerambhai had sold the land to one Vanmali Oghavajibhai vide registered sale deed dated 31.08.1968. It appears that the said Vanmali Oghavajibhai had sold the land to father of the petitioner Narshibhai Khimabhai vide registered sale deed dated 20.04.1974. It would appear that the entry with regard to registered sale deed in favour of the father of the petitioner, had been mutated in the revenue record vide entry No.664 dated 15.11.1976. It appears that the said entry had been certified on 22.12.1976.

5. It appears that later on, show cause notice dated 31.07.1990 had been received by the father of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 9(1)(2)(3) of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, more particularly for breach of Section 8 of the said Act. It appears that the Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra, had conducted the proceedings of the Fragmentation Case No.32/87-88 and had passed order dated 24.12.1990 inter alia holding that the sale of 1 Acre and 8 Gunthas had resulted in creation of fragment and all the transactions starting from the transaction of 1968 till the transaction in favour of the father of the petitioner, had been declared as invalid and all the opponents were imposed with penalty of Rs.50/-. It is the said order, which was sought to be challenged before the SSRD after a huge delay and whereas the SSRD had rejected the application for condoning delay.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Paneri for the petitioner would submit that the SSRD had grossly erred in rejecting the revision application on the ground of limitation. It is submitted that while the Deputy Collector vide order of the year 1990, had directed that the petitioner / his father being removed from the land in question, yet till date, he had not been removed therefrom. It is submitted that on the other hand, the legal heirs of the original seller namely the respondent Nos.3.1 and 3.2 herein, had without any authority, sold the land in favour of the respondent No.5 herein and whereas while the revenue entry N