Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Kasala vs State Of Gujarat Through Special ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4136 Guj

       C/SCA/3351/2013                                  CAV JUDGMENT




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3351 of 2013
                                With
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3537 of 2013
                                With
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3540 of 2013

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

========================================================== PRAVINBHAI KESHAVBHAI KASALA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SPECIAL SECRETARY (APPEALS) & 2 other(s) ========================================================== Appearance:

MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MRS KIRAN P JOSHI(1328) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the

RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN Date : 15/03/2021

1. The issues involved in all the petitions are interconnected, overlapping and outcome of one writ petition, will have a bearing on the others. Therefore, all the writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common CAV judgment.

2. Though facts are common; challenge in all the three writ

petitions varies, and gist in sequential order of events, is set out hereunder for ease of reference

i. In Special Civil Application No.3537 of 2013, the issue pertains to the entry no.173, which came to be mutated in the revenue record apropos the sale deed dated 23.2.1959 executed in favour of the father of the petitioner. The said entry was not certified and was cancelled by an order dated 19.2.1961 passed by the Mamlatdar, Umrala. The said order was challenged before the Collector, Bhavnagar in the year 1998, i.e. after a period of 38 years, and the appeal came to be rejected vide order dated 13.10.2000, unsuccessfully challenged before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals).

ii. In Special Civil Application No.3540 of 2013, the issue pertains to the order dated 8.10.1984 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palitana cancelling the transaction of sale in favour of the father of the petitioner, the same being without the prior permission of the authorities and in breach of the conditions of the grant. The said order was challenged before the Collector, Bhavnagar, i.e. after a period of 15 years, who vide order dated 13.10.2000 dismissed the appeal and unsuccessfully challenged before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals).

iii. In Special Civil Application No.3351 of 2013, the issue pertains to entry no.959, which was mutated in the revenue record giving effect to the order dated 8.10.1984 and certified by the Mamlatdar, Umrala vide order dated 8.2.1986. The order dated 8.2.1986 passed by the Mamlatdar, Umrala was challenged before the Collector, Bhavnagar after a period of 13 years and the appeal came to be rejected vide order dated 13.10.2000, which was unsuccessfully challenged before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals).

3. The facts as is discernible from the petition, are to the effect that the land situated at village Samadhiyala, Taluka Umrala was running in the name of one Shri Bavaji Ishwardas Jankidas. According to the petitioner, after enactment of Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1951') the Special Mamlatdar, Palitana issued a Hakpatrak Certificate dated 6.3.1953 in favour of Shri Bavaji Ishwardas Jankidas in connection with the land bearing survey no.135, admeasuring 3 acres, 08 gunthas (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question') and said transfer was entered in the revenue record vide entry no.124. Vide registered sale­deed dated 23.2.1959, the father of the petitioner purchased the land in question by paying full consideration towards the same. Pursuant to which, an entry no.173 was mutated in the revenue record, however, the same was not certified and came to be rejected vide order dated 9.12.1961 passed by the Mamlatdar, Umrala.

3.1 The said order dated 9.12.1961 of the Mamlatdar, Umrala was challenged by the petitioner before the Collector under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1972') and Section 204 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The Collector, Bhavnagar, vide order dated 13.10.2000, dismissed the appeal, inter alia, on the ground that the appeal has been filed almost after a period of 38 years, which is a gross delay; without any reasonable explanation for condoning the delay. Thereby, the order dated 9.12.1961 of the Mamlatdar, Umrala stood confirmed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner under Rule 108(6­A) of the Rules of 1972 preferred a revision application before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), who vide order dated 1.2/3/2012 rejected the revision and confirmed the order dated 13.10.2000 of the Collector, Bhavnagar. The petitioner being aggrieved

has preferred the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.3537 of 2013.

4. The Deputy Collector, Palitana initiated a suo motu proceedings by registering a case being sharatbhang case no.68 of 1984 on the ground that the land in question being a new tenure land, it could not have been sold to anyone without the prior permission, under the provisions of the Act of 1951. The suo motu proceedings culminated into order dated 8.10.1984 whereby, the Deputy Collector, Palitana ordered to enter the land in question in the name of the State Government.

4.1 The said order dated 8.10.1984 was challenged by the petitioner before the Collector by filing an appeal in the year 1999, which came to be rejected by the Collector vide order dated 13.10.2000, which order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The petitioner has preferred Special Civil Application No.3540 of 2013 challenging the order dated 1.2/3.2012 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) whereby, the revision application under Rule 108(6­A) of the Rules of 1972 has been dismissed and the order dated 13.10.2000 passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar, was confirmed.

5. Further, pursuant to the order dated 8.10.1984, entry no.959 came to be posted in the revenue record on 9.9.1985 followed by certification on 8.2.1986 by the Mamlatdar, Umrala.

5.1 Being aggrieved by the order dated 8.2.1986 passed by the Mamlatdar, certifying the entry, the petitioner preferred an appeal No.71/88­89 before the Collector, Bhavnagar, who vide order dated 13.10.2000, rejected the appeal, inter alia, on the ground that the applicant, i.e. the petitioner, has preferred the appeal after long delay of

13 years and no reasonable cause has been furnished for such a delay. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision application under Rule 108(6­A) of the Rules of 1972 before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), who vide order dated 1.2/3.2012 did not entertain the revision application and confirmed the order dated 13.10.2000 passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar.

5.2 The petitioner in writ petition being Special Civil Application No.3351 of 2013 has challenged the order dated 1.2/3.2012 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) whereby, the revision application has been rejected and consequently, the order dated 13.10.2000 stands confirmed.

6. According to the writ petitioner, since the proceedings were initiated against the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware. The father of the petitioner passed away on 19.1.1989 and subsequent thereof, the petitioner came to know about namely, (i) the order dated 9.12.1961 passed by the Mamlatdar, Umrala cancelling the entry no.173; (ii) order dated 8.10.1984 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palitana declaring the transaction of sale of land in question in favour of the father of the petitioner, as illegal and (iii) order dated 9.9.1985 passed by the Mamlatdar, Umrala mutating entry no.959 in the revenue record as well as order dated 8.2.1986 certifying the entry no.959. It is thereafter that the petitioner has challenged all the aforesaid three orders before the Collector, Bhavnagar in respective proceedings by filing three appeals.

7. The Deputy Collector concerned on behalf of the respondents has filed replies in all the three writ petitions, which are almost common, barring few additional facts. The gist of the reply is to the effect that the land in question was running in the name of Shri

Thakorji, "Administrator Shri Ishwardas Jankidas" vide entry no.124 dated 31.3.1959. Shri Ishwardas Jankidas was holding the land as an Administrator of Shri Thakorji and was not an absolute owner and therefore, he was not lawfully authorised to execute the sale­deed in favour of third party within a period of 10 years and that too without the prior permission of the State Government.

7.1 So far as the order dated 9.12.1961 passed by the Mamlatdar, cancelling the entry no.173 is concerned, it is stated that the entry no.173 was mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the sale transaction which was in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1951 and the Rules framed thereunder. It is stated that as per the provisions of the Act read with the Rules, the sale is impermissible within a period of 10 years and undisputedly the sale in favour of the petitioner was effected in the year 1959, which was immediately after the grant. Therefore, the sale transaction being in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1951 read with the Rules, the Mamlatdar cancelled the entry no.173 dated 9.12.1961. It is also stated that the order dated 9.12.1961 was not challenged by the father of the petitioner, but the same was challenged by the petitioner after the delay of almost 38 years. Despite the fact that the petitioner was aware about all the proceedings, the petitioner did not chose to challenge the same within a reasonable time and the challenge to all the orders was grossly belated and without sufficient explanation.

7.2 It is further stated that Shri Ishwardas Jankidas had sold the land in question without prior permission and within a period of 10 years of the grant of the land in question, as a result whereof, the Mamlatdar, Umrala had registered a case. The statement of Shri Atmaram Ishwardas, son of Ishwardas Jankidas was recorded on 9.6.1983 and a

proposal was made to the Deputy Collector, Palitana to initiate the proceedings for breach of the condition. On the basis whereof, the Deputy Collector has initiated the proceedings which got culminated into the order dated 8.3.1984 (sic 8.10.1984) in Sharatbhang Case No.68/1984. Apropos the aforesaid order dated 8.3.1984 (sic 8.10.1984), the Mamlatdar, Umrala initiated the Daban Case No.01/98­ 99 and after inquiry, passed an order dated 14.10.1998, directing removal of encroachment on the Government land. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.1998 passed by the Mamlatdar in the aforesaid Daban case, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector who, vide order dated 22.11.1999 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 14.10.1998 passed by the Mamlatdar, which has attained finality as the same has not been challenged.

7.3 While adverting to the preliminary objections as regards maintainability of the petition, it is stated that the respective proceedings have been launched after a delay of 38 years, 15 years and 13 years respectively, without any sufficient explanation and only with a view to enuring benefits of rise in price of the land in question. The respective proceedings have been initiated with a gross delay and the orders passed by the respective authorities are in right earnest and the petitions deserve to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Also, there are concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the three revenue authorities against the petitioner and therefore, the petitions may not be entertained and be dismissed in the interest of justice.

8. Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner in all the three writ petitions, has made common submissions. It is submitted that father of the petitioner purchased the land in question through registered sale­deed in the year 1959 apropos which, entry no.173 was

mutated in the revenue record, which, came to be rejected by the Mamlatdar, Umrala on 9.12.1961. The order was challenged by preferring an appeal before the Collector, Bhavnagar, which came to be rejected vide order dated 13.10.2000.

8.1 It is further submitted that though the entry no.173, was cancelled vide order dated 9.12.1961, the Deputy Collector initiated the proceedings of breach in the year 1984 that is, after a delay of almost 24 years and therefore, the revenue authorities ought not to have passed the impugned orders rejecting the appeal and revision of the petitioner. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner was looking after the administration of the land in question and therefore, the petitioner was unaware and it is only after the death of the father of the petitioner that the notice under Section 61 of the Code was served upon him, when, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that some proceedings were going on. It is further submitted that the petitioner gathered the informations by making necessary applications and after collecting all the informations, appeals came to be preferred against the respective orders before the Collector, Bhavnagar, in the years 1998­1999.

8.2 It is next submitted that the petitioner had offered sufficient explanation for delay caused in preferring the appeals and the authorities below ought not to have passed the impugned orders only on the ground that the appeals preferred by the petitioner were belated. It is submitted that the petitioner came to know about the proceeding only for the first time after the issuance of the notice dated 16.10.1998 by the Mamlatdar in connection with the encroachment case and therefore, the limitation would start only from the year 1998. Hence, it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in preferring the appeals before the authorities below. It is further submitted that if the

said explanation in connection with the delay would have been accepted, then in that case, the order dated 9.12.1961 passed by the Mamlatdar, Umrala cancelling the entry no.173 posted in the revenue record, deserved to be quashed and set aside.

8.3 While adverting to the aspect of breach of condition, that is, the sale in favour of the father of the petitioner, it is submitted that the restriction contained in the provisions of the Act of 1951 would not be attracted considering the fact that after verifying necessary records and drawing panchnama, that the land in question was handed over to the original owner coupled with the fact of issuance of certificate for possession under Rule 61 of the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1951") read with Section 15 of the Act of 1951, and therefore, the original owner was well within his right to transfer the land in question. Further, possession certificate was also issued and therefore, there was no restriction on the part of the original owner not to transfer the land in question through the registered sale­deed. Accordingly, to hold that there was a breach of condition of the grant order and the land in question could not have been sold to the father of the petitioner, was erroneous stance taken by the authorities below.

8.4 It is further submitted that so far as the order dated 8.10.1984 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palitana in connection with the proceedings for breach of condition is concerned, the proceedings were belated and could not have been initiated after a lapse of almost 24 years. In support of said contention, reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1676. In the said case, High Court was dealing with the proceedings initiated under the Gharkhed Ordinance and the authorities

therein initiated the action after a period of 17 years, such an action was quashed and set aside by the High Court on the ground that the authorities concerned were precluded from initiating any proceedings beyond the reasonable time. Similarly, in the present case, the action was initiated by the Deputy Collector while passing the order dated 8.10.1984 with the delay of almost 24 years and therefore, applying the principle laid down in the judgment in the case of Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar (supra), the order dated 13.10.2000 passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar, as well as order dated 1.2/3.2012 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), deserve to be quashed and set aside.

8.5 Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1788. It is submitted that as can be discern out, the void transaction was allowed to remain for more than 30 years and this Hon'ble Court has held that the action is to be initiated within a reasonable period even if the transaction is void. It is therefore, urged that so far as the challenge to the order dated 8.10.1984 passed by the Deputy Collector is concerned, the same ought to have been quashed and set aside by the Collector, Bhavnagar in appeal.

8.6 While summing up, it is submitted that the authorities below ought to have appreciated that since the father of the petitioner was looking after the land in question, the petitioner was not aware and it came to the knowledge of the petitioner only when the notice dated 16.10.1998 was issued in connection with the proceedings of the encroachment and therefore, the limitation would start only from the year 1998. Considering the year 1998, as a starting point of limitation and appeals having been filed in the year 1999, it cannot be said that the

appeals were filed with the delay of 38 years, 15 years and 13 years respectively. So far as the challenge to the order dated 8.10.1984 passed by the Deputy Collector is concerned, an additional ground is available to the petitioner inasmuch as, it was impermissible to the Deputy Collector to have initiated the proceedings for breach of condition almost after a period of 24 years in view of the settled principle that the authorities are obligated to initiate the proceedings within a reasonable time. Therefore, the order dated 13.10.2000 of the Collector, Bhavnagar, and further order dated 1.2/3.2012 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), were erroneous and deserve to be quashed and set aside. It is thus urged that all the petitions deserve to be allowed.

9. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, opposing the writ petitions vehemently submitted that apropos the sale transaction dated 23.10.1959, an entry no.173 was mutated in the revenue record which was cancelled vide order dated 9.12.1961 passed by the Mamlatdar, which was accepted by the father of the petitioner as well as by the original grantee. Neither the father of the petitioner nor the original grantee challenged the order during their lifetime and it is misconceived to contend that the father was also not aware. The father of the petitioner passed away in the year 1989 and therefore, it is unbelievable that he was not aware about the order dated 9.12.1961, almost for 30 years.

9.1 It is next submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to contend that the father of the petitioner was not aware because he himself had participated in the proceedings and had made submissions, which are clearly recorded by the Deputy Collector, Palitana and it is only thereafter that the order dated 8.10.1984 has

been passed. It is submitted that it is not open to the petitioner to contend that his father was not served with the copy of the order for, it was served to the father of the petitioner. That the order of the Deputy Collector was passed in the year 1984 and the father of the petitioner died in the year 1989 and for almost five years, though he was alive, did not challenge the order.

9.2 While adverting to the aspect of breach of condition, it is submitted that the grant was under a specific statute, meant for the benefit of the grantee to maintain the same. The original grantee was allowed the land on certain terms and conditions which obligated the original grantee not to part away the property within a period of 10 years. However, the sale transaction took place immediately after the grant and therefore, the transaction was hit by the provisions of the Act of 1951 and the Rules framed thereunder. It is submitted that Rule 76 of the Rules of 1951 stipulates a period of 10 years and within that period, the land in question could not have been transferred. Therefore, the order dated 8.10.1984 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palitana was in accordance with law and no error was committed by the Deputy Collector. It is submitted that the delay which has occasioned on the part of the petitioner in challenging the entries and orders, it is something which cannot be ignored. There is a delay of 38 years in challenging the order dated 9.12.1961 cancelling the entry no.173; delay of 15 years in challenging the order dated 8.10.1984 in the case of breach of condition; and delay of 13 years in challenging the order dated 8.2.1986 of the Mamlatdar mutating the entry no.959 in the revenue record. It is submitted that the explanation offered by the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware and that it is only after the death of the father of the petitioner that it came to his knowledge, cannot be entertained, for, if such explanation is accepted, that will open the floodgate of

litigation.

9.3 It is submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the petitions before this court for the reason that the title over the land in question was never transferred either in favour of the father of the petitioner much less the petitioner due to the statutory restrictions. It is submitted that the challenge to the order dated 9.12.1961, cancelling the mutation entry no.173 by the petitioner is hopelessly time­barred and in view of the said order, no right, title and interest can be said to have been accrued. Further, the petitioner has slept over his right for all these years and cannot wake­up from slumber and challenge the orders with a delay of almost 38 years, 15 years and 13 years respectively. It is thus urged that no error has been committed either by the Collector or by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), and the petitions being devoid of merits, deserve to be dismissed.

10. In rejoinder, Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that no sooner the petitioner came to know about the proceedings, the petitioner than has challenged the same without any further delay and therefore, the delay occasioned in preferring the proceedings will depend upon the facts of each case. Further, no straitjacket formula can be applied while considering the delay in preferring the proceedings.

10.1 So far as the contention raised as regards locus is concerned, it is submitted that there was a registered sale­deed executed in favour of the father of the petitioner, it is immaterial that the original owner challenged the order or not. The father of the petitioner has the interest and there is a challenge to the order dated 8.10.1984 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palitana. While referring to the order dated 8.10.1984, it is submitted that it does not indicate as to whether the order was

served upon the father of the petitioner or not, except the endorsement of copy sent, and therefore, the burden is upon the State Government to prove by producing some conclusive proof that the order was served upon the father of the petitioner and not on the basis of mere presumption. So far as the contention of opening the floodgate is concerned, the same depends upon the facts of each case and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the negligence on the part of the State Government.

10.2 While adverting to the proceedings for breach of condition, it is submitted that the land in question was granted in favour of Ishwardas Jankidas and the same was not in favour of the temple. So far as the Circular dated 9.4.2010 issued by the revenue department and relied upon by the Deputy Collector and annexed with the affidavit is concerned, it is submitted that the said Circular is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as, the grant is in favour of Ishwardas Jankidas. Further, as is clear from the entry no.124, the said entry records Thakorji Temple, but through Vahivatkarta i.e. through Ishwardas Jankidas and therefore, the said grant was in individual capacity and not in favour of the Temple Shri Thakorji. It is submitted that so far as the delay in initiating the proceedings and passing the order dated 8.10.1984 are concerned, no submissions have been made and therefore, the order dated 8.10.1984 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

11. Heard Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner in all the writ petitions and Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

12. The brief facts, as can be culled out from the material available on record are to the effect that, Shri Thakorji Temple, Administrator Shri

Ishwardas Jankidas was granted the land in question and effect of the said grant was posted in the revenue record vide entry no.124 dated 21.3.1959. Immediately thereafter, a transaction of sale was entered into between Shri Ishwardas Jankidas on one hand and Shri Keshavbhai Vashrambhai i.e. father of the petitioner on the other, by executing a registered sale­deed in the year 1959. The effect of the said transaction was mutated in the revenue record vide entry no.173 dated 19.1.1960, which came to be cancelled vide order dated 9.12.1961 passed by the Mamlatdar, Umrala. Had it been the case of Ishwardas Jankidas that the land in question is given to him in individual capacity, he would have challenged the order dated 9.12.1961; however, he did not do so. So was the position of the father of the petitioner, as he also accepted the order. Therefore, the order remained unchallenged during their lifetime.

13. Pertinently, the land in question was granted in favour of Shri Thakorji Temple through the Administrator Ishwardas Jankidas, and the same was subject to the restrictions contained in the Act of 1951 and the Rules framed thereunder. According to Rule 76 of the Rules of 1951, the land could not have been sold within a period of 10 years and without the prior permission of the authorities concerned. Adverting to the order dated 8.10.1984 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palitana, it is required to be noted that notice was served to the parties and the parties have participated in the proceedings before the Deputy Collector and it was nobody's case that the land in question was not of a restricted tenure as the same was granted to Ishwardas Jankidas in personal capacity. Therefore, on the basis of material available on record, the order dated 8.10.1984 was passed, inter alia, holding that the transaction was without prior permission and in breach of the provisions of the Act of 1951. Accordingly, the land in question was ordered to be confiscated in the State Government. The said order also remained unchallenged till

the year 1989 when Shri Keshavbhai Vashrambhai, father of the petitioner died and thereafter for another ten years, till the petitioner challenged it in the year 1999 before the Collector with the only explanation that the petitioner was not aware about the proceedings initiated by the authorities below. Also, in the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.3540 of 2013, no documents have been produced to substantiate the aspect that the land in question was not of restricted tenure and the original grantee was free to deal with the land in question. Moreover, the factual averments made in the affidavit­in­reply filed by the State Government have remained uncontroverted. Therefore, the petitioner could not justify or buttress his both contentions on merit as well as on delay.

13.1 Further, while challenging the order dated 8.10.1984, it is also contended that the proceeding of breach was initiated by the Collector beyond the reasonable time, that is after 24 years, which was impermissible, in view of the judgments in the cases of Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar (supra) as well as Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya (supra), wherein this Court has held that action is to be initiated within a reasonable period even if the transaction is void. Such contention is neither here nor there inasmuch as, the petitioner himself has challenged the order dated 8.10.1984 passed by the Deputy Collector after a gross delay of almost 15 years, and has thoroughly failed in explaining the delay. In peculiar facts of the case, the principle laid down by this Court in the cases of Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar (supra) and Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya (supra), will not have any application.

14. Similarly, so far as the entry no.959 which was posted in the revenue record by the Mamlatdar, Umrala pursuant to the order dated 8.10.1984 is concerned, the father of the petitioner did not challenge the

mutation of the entry no.959 as well. The father of the petitioner, had he been aggrieved, would have challenged the posting of the said entry no.959 in the revenue record on 9.9.1985 and certified on 8.2.1986. However, the said entry no.959 was also not challenged during the lifetime of the father of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the same with the delay of 13 years, with a lame explanation that the father was administering the land in question and he was not aware. Perceptibly, the orders dated 9.12.1961, 8.10.1984 as well as 8.2.1986 passed by the Mamlatdar, Umrala and Deputy Collector, Palitana, respectively, remained unchallenged during the lifetime of the father of the petitioner.

15. The fact remains and as is discernible from the record, the father of the petitioner, all throughout was well aware about the order dated 9.12.1961 as well as order dated 8.10.1984 and he, for the reasons best known to him, did not challenge both the aforesaid orders during his lifetime and resultantly, he acquiesced his right over the land in question. The question of any right in favour of the petitioner will arise only when the father of the petitioner had any right over the land in question. Clearly, the father of the petitioner lost his right way back in the year 1961 and thereafter, in the year 1984 and he passed away in the year 1989. Therefore, there arises no question of petitioner having right over the land in question inasmuch as, once the right is lost, the remedy is lost as well.

16. Further, it is the petitioner's case that the proceedings came to his knowledge only when he was in receipt of the notice dated 16.10.1998 and therefore, the limitation should start from the year 1998 and not from the years 1961 or 1984 or 1986 as the case may be. Acceptance of such contention would not only be disastrous, but would

open the floodgates for revival of stale claims, which had otherwise attained finality in law. Therefore, there is no substance in such contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the limitation would start from the year 1998 and the appeals having been filed in the year 1999, were within the limitation. Besides, one more aspect needs to be highlighted and not disputed by the petitioner, that is, the Daban Case No.1 of 1998­1999, registered against the petitioner and his brother, which culminated into the order dated 14.10.1998. The said order was challenged in appeal before the Deputy Collector, who vide order dated 22.5.1999 rejected the appeal followed by mutation of entry No.1345 dated 12.12.1999 in the Village Form No.VI. Neither the order dated 22.5.1999 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palitana nor the entry No.1345 have been challenged by the petitioner before the higher forum, the said proceedings, have also attained finality.

17. Pertinently, in all the writ petitions, the authorities below have passed orders against the petitioner and have held in favour of the State Government. The learned advocate for the petitioner, has not been able to point out that the findings arrived at by the authorities below are perverse inasmuch as, there was no evidence to justify such conclusion or that the authorities below have misdirected themselves either on law or facts. It is a well settled proposition of law that it would not be open to the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with a finding within the jurisdiction of inferior tribunal except where the findings are perverse and not based on any material evidence or resulting in manifest injustice.

18. Except the fact that, the proceedings came to the knowledge of the petitioner only in the year 1998, no other valid reasons are forthcoming on the record to suggest that the authorities below have

committed any error of not considering the facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the appeals and revisions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Collector, Bhavnagar in the first instance and the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in the second, committed any error in dismissing the appeals and/or revisions of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground of the same having been filed after a delay of 38 years, 15 years and 13 years, respectively. Once the authorities have concurrently found that the delay is gross with no reasonable explanation and petitioner not pointing out any error, this Court is of the opinion that the orders, all dated 13.10.2000 and 1.2/3.2012 do not warrant interference, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

19. Resultantly, the petitions do not deserve to be entertained and are hereby dismissed.

20. Rule is discharged in all the petitions. No order as to costs.

21. After the pronouncement of common CAV judgment, learned advocate for the petitioner requested that vide order dated 5.12.2013, this Court has granted status quo qua the subject land to be maintained by the concerned parties, till the final disposal of the petitions. It is requested that status quo granted by this Court be extended for a period of four weeks as the petitioner is desirous of pursuing remedy before the higher forum. The status quo granted vide order dated 5.12.2013 is extended for a period of four weeks, from today.

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) BINOY B PILLAI