Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
Anirudhsinh Nagendrasinh Zala - Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 29 of 2025 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2025 With Civil Application (For Amendment) No. 2 of 2025 With R/Special Civil Application No. 42 of 2025 With Civil Application (For Amendment) No. 2 of 2025 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2025
Decided On : 06-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dipan Desai.
For the Respondents: Mr. Jayneel Parikh, AGP, Mr. Mihir Thakore, Senior Counsel with Mr. Mihir Joshi, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D.K. Puj.

Condonation of inordinate delay is a discretionary power, not a right. It requires a bona fide explanation, not a mere excuse. When a party's claim of ignorance is falsified by public records, the authority cannot condone the delay without acting contrary to law and principles of equity.

Headnote:(A) Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 - Sections 9 and 35 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 40 years - Seeking to challenge an order of competent authority after four decades - Whether mere plea of lack of knowledge is sufficient when revenue records evidence otherwise. (Paras 16.5, 16.7, 17.14)

(B) Limitation and Condonation of Delay - Sufficient cause vs. Lame excuse - Condonation of delay is not a matter of right but a discretionary power - Requirement of bona fide explanation - Courts must distinguish between an explanation for delay and an excuse proffered to cover inaction - Where parties wait for equities to be created to overreach the process of law, discretionary relief cannot be granted. (Paras 17.7, 17.17)

(C) Judicial Review - Scope of - Appellate or Revisional authorities must record reasons while exercising discretion - Failure to consider documents on record and relying on incorrect factual findings regarding the date of knowledge of an order renders the decision liable for interference under Article 226. (Paras 17.13, 18)

Facts of the case:
A sale transaction involving landed property in 1975 was declared void under the provisions of the local Prevention of Fragmentation Act in 1981 as being in violation of mandatory statutory provisions. The order of the authority was recorded in the revenue register. Approximately 40 years later, the purchasers challenged the 1981 order, claiming they were unaware of its existence. The revisional authority condoned the delay and entertained the revision application. The petitioner, representing interests in the land, challenged this order on the grounds that the delay was inordinate and the explanation offered was false given the long entry of the order in the public revenue records.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the records, including public revenue entries and subsequent legal proceedings involving the parties, clearly established that the purchasers had constructive and actual knowledge of the 1981 order. The claim of ignorance was termed a 'lame excuse' rather than a valid explanation. The authority failed to exercise discretion based on established principles, ignoring documented evidence.

Issues: The issues addressed were whether a delay of 40 years to challenge an administrative order can be condoned based on an unsubstantiated plea of lack of knowledge and whether the exercise of discretionary power by a revisional authority in such circumstances is hit by perversity and failure to consider relevant evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay is a discretionary power that must be supported by 'sufficient cause.' A distinction exists between an 'explanation' and a 'lame excuse.' When the record contradicts the claim of ignorance, the party seeking condonation is attempting to abuse the process of law. Courts and authorities must not treat an application for condonation as a mere formality but must satisfy themselves of the bona fides of the applicant before setting aside the rule of limitation, which is rooted in sound public policy.

Result: Petitions allowed; Rule made absolute; Impugned order condoning delay set aside.

Table of Content
1. procedural consolidation and governance of multiple petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. factual history regarding land transactions and litigation timeline. (Para 5)
3. determination of locus standi under the fragmentation act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. competing arguments regarding delay condonation and substantive rights. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE, returnable forthwith. Learned advocates waive service of Rule for and on behalf of the respective parties. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matters are taken-up for final hearing.

2. Heard Mr. Dipan Desai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D.K. Puj, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 4, Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State authorities and Mr. Vimal Purohit, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 4 to 5, 7 to 9 and 10 to 13 in SCA No. 42 of 2025.

3. As the grievance raised by the petitioners in the captioned petitions are selfsame, both the petitions are heard analogously and common order is passed in both the petitions, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

4. The Petition being Special Civil Application No. 29 of 2025 is taken as a lead matter and the facts stated from the said Petition, shall govern both the petitions.

5. The present petition is directed against the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 (wrongly typed as 18.12.2023) passed by the respondent no.1 – Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No. 1 of 2023 linked with Revision Application No. 2 of 2023, whereby, the respondent no.1 allowed the application for condonation of delay being No. CON/AMD/1 & 2/2023 preferred by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 (private respondents) and admitted the Revision Application No. 1 of 2023 and Revision Application No. 2 of 2023. The petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:

“6. The petitioner therefore, humbly prays that:

(A) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 (wrongly typed as 18.12.2023) passed by the respondent No. 1-Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No. 1 of 2023 linked with Revision Application no.2 of 2023 (annexed at Annexure-A to the petition).

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 (wrongly typed as 18.12.2023) passed by the respondent No. 1-Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No.1 of 2023 linked with Revision Application no. 2 of 2023 (annexed at Annexure-A to the petition).

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Revision Application No.01 of 2023 linked with Revision Application no.2 of 2023 pending before the Special Secretary (Appeals).

(D) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s as deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.”

6. Notice came to be issued on 03.01.2025, wherein, the matters were directed to be listed on 08.01.2025 more particularly for deciding the primary issues as per the Court, which reads thus:

“When would a seller of a property be entitled to participate / initiate proceedings under the Prevention of Fragmentation Act”

and

“whether the seller would have any locus to object an application for condoning delay in a revision application filed by the purchaser against an order passed by the Deputy Collector declaring the sale in favour of the purchaser invalid under the provisions of Prevention of Fragmenta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1243

Condonation of inordinate delay is a discretionary power, not a right. It requires a bona fide explanation, not a mere excuse. When a party's claim of ignorance is falsified by public records, the authority cannot condone the delay without acting contrary to law and principles of equity.

Cases Referred (4)