RASHMIBEN THAKORBHAI DESAI WIDOW OF PRAVINCHANDRA BADAMI & ORS. v. THE STAE OF GUJARAT & ORS

Judgment

#1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State and Mr. Aadit R. Sanajanwala, learned advocate waives service of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.4. With the consent of the learned advocates C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken-up for 1nal hearing.

#2. Heard Mr. Zubin F. Bharda, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State and Mr. Aadit R. Sanajanwala, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.4.

#3. By way of the present petition, petitioners herein have invoked Article-226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved and dissatis1ed by the order passed by the respondent no.1 – SSRD dated 26.12.2018, rejecting the Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/VLS/64/2018 1led by the petitioners herein, upholding the order passed by the respondent no.2 - Collector, Valsad in Order No. CB/RTS/Remand No. 84/2017 dated

10.09.2018 and in turn setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Pardi allowing the RTS Appeal No. 311/2014 dated 21.07.2015 1led by the petitioners and thereby cancelling the revenue entry no. 9991 mutated in the revenue records of Village: Umarsadi, Tal.: Pardi, in account nos. 1111 and 1113, whereby, the names of the petitioners came to be entered as legal heirs of the deceased father, viz. Thakorbhai Naranji Desai. The aforesaid has given rise to the 1ling of the present petition, having prayed for the following reliefs: C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 “8. In the above premises, the petitioners therefore pray as under:- A. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this petition. Ahmedabad, B. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) rejecting the Revision Application No.MV/HKP/VLS/64/2018 6led by the petitioners and upholding the order passed by the Collector, Valsad in Order No. CB/RTS/Remand No.84/2017 dated 10.09.2018 setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Pardi, directing the Mamlatdar Pardi, / competent authority to enter the names of the petitioners as legal heirs of their deceased father Thakorbhai Naranji Desai in the revenue records with respect to the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 1244/3, 1245/1, 1154/2, 1246/1 to 3, 1246, 592/1, 593/2B, 6107, 592/2, 592/3, 609/5+3, 757+747+748/2 and 751 situated in Village - Umarsadi, Taluka - Pardi, District - Valsad in the Revenue Entry No.9991 dated 25.06.2002 and in turn restore the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Pardi in RTS Appeal Case No.311/2014. Ahmedabad, C Pending admission and/or 6nal disposal of the writ petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the operation of the Judgment and Order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department rejecting the Revision Application (Appeals) No.MVV/HKP/VLS/64/2018 con6rming the order passed by the Collector, Valsad in Order No.CB/RTS/Remand No.84 /2017 dated 10.09.2018 and further be pleased to direct the competent authority / Mamlatdar, Pardi to enter the names of the petitioners in the revenue records of Revenue Survey Nos. 1244/3, 1245/1, 1154/2, 1246/1 to 3, 1246, 592/1, 593/2B, 6107, 592/2, 592/3, 609/5+3, 757+747+748/2 and 751 situated in Village - Umarsadi, Taluka - Pardi, District - Valsad, pending the 6nal disposal of this writ petition. D. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant such other and further relief as may be deemed 6t and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. E. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to award cost of the petition from the respondents.”

4.1. BrieCy stated that, the agricultural lands bearing revenue survey nos. 1244/3, 1245/1, 1154/2, 1246/1 to 3, 1246, C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 592/1, 593/2B, 6107, 592/2, 592/3, 609/5+3, 757+747+748/2 and 751 situated in Village: Umarsadi, Tal.: Pardi, Dist.: Valsad was the ownership of Thakorbhai Naranji Desai, who happened to be the father of the petitioners as well as the respondent no.3 and the grandfather of the respondent nos. 4 to 6 and the father-in-law of the respondent no.7. It is the case of the petitioners that, upon demise of their father, under the pretext that some revenue entries were required to be mutated and the names of the legal heirs were to be brought in place of the deceased father, the respondent no.3 obtained signatures of the petitioners on certain documents. Upon perusal of the 7/12 extracts, it came to the notice of the petitioners that one revenue entry no. 9991 on

25.06.2002 was mutated by way of which the respondent no.3 got the names of the petitioners fraudulently removed.

4.2. Upon realizing the same, the petitioners preferred Appeal before the Deputy Collector, Pardi, challenging the revenue entry no. 9991 dated 25.06.2002 certi1ed on 23.08.2002 on 11.08.2014, which came to be registered as RTS/Appeal/P.A. Case No. 311/2014, which came to be partly allowed, for the reasons stated in Para-3.2(1) to (9) in the memo of the petition.

4.3.

The respondent nos.4 to 8 challenged the said order passed by the Deputy Collector, Pardi Prant before the Collector, Valsad by 1ling Revision Application No. CB/RTS/ Revision/ Case C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 No. 122/2015, which was rejected by the Collector, Valsad vide order dated 26.02.2016, also, cancelled the directions issued by the Deputy Collector, Pardi Prant to the Mamlatdar to enter the names of the petitioners in the record of rights as legal heirs and in turn directed that the names of the petitioners be entered in the record of the rights as joint owners in the record of rights.

4.4. Pursuant thereto, the private respondents 1led RTS Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/VLS/54/2016 before the respondent no.1 – SSRD (Appeals), wherein, by order dated

10.07.2017 the matter was remanded back to the Collector, by granting opportunity of hearing to the respective parties.

4.5. The Collector, Valsad renumdered the Revision Application as CB/RTS/Remand Case No. 84 of 2017 and after hearing the parties, set aside the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Deputy Collector, Pardi bearing No. RTS/Appeal/P.A. Case No. 311/2014 rejecting the revenue entry no. 9991 dated

25.06.2002 and in turn ordered certi1cation of the revenue entry no. 9991 dated 25.06.2002.

4.6. The petitioners 1led Reivsion Application No. MVV/ HKP/VLS/64/2018 before the SSRD challenging the aforesaid order, wherein, the SSRD vide orer dated 26.12.2018 rejected the Revision Application 1led by the petitioners and upheld the order C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 passed by the Collector, Valsad, which gave rise to the 1ling of the present petition with the reliefs as stated herein-above.

5.1. Mr. Zubin Bharda, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the orders passed by the Collector, Valsad allowing the Remand Case 1led by the respondent nos. 4 to 8 and the order passed by the SSRD rejecting the Revision Application 1led by the petitioners was erroneous, having ignored settled position of law with respect to the revenue entries, as the Deputy Collector, Pardi had examined all the relevant documents and arrived at a conclusion that the revenue entry no. 9991 dated 25.06.2002 and certi1ed on 23.08.2002 was pertaining to the heirship of the deceased Thakorbhai Naranji Desai, who was the father of the petitioners and whose names came to be entered as legal heirs of the deceased and also whose names came to be removed by the very said revenue Entry No. 9991. It is submitted that, the said procedure is not in consonance with the prescribed procedure for making mutation in the record of rights, as the heirship application was with respect to the entering the name of the legal heirs, as per the pedigree prepared, whereas, by certifying the revenue entry, the names of the petitioners were removed, for which separate entry proceedings ought to have been initiated and for which notice under Section 135 (D) of the Land Revenue Code was mandatory, C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 to enable the petitioners, who had initially consented for the removal of their names, got an opportunity of withdrawing the consent, considering the fact that the private respondents did not ful1ll their commitment given to the petitioners for their promised and agreed share against which they consented for removal of their names from the revenue records.

5.2. It is submitted that, the learned SSRD and the Collector failed to appreciate that, if an entry is found to have been made by exercising or practicing fraud, the same would vitiate the delay. The Deputy Collector, Pardi was justi1ed in directing the names of all the petitioners to be entered in the record of rights, as legal heirs of deceased Thakorbhai Naranji Desai, who was the father of the petitioners and whose name came to be entered as legal heirs of deceased and also whose names came to be removed by way of very same entry no. 9991.

5.3. Mr. Bharda, learned advocate also disputed the signature of the petitioner no.4 in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The agreement relied upon for the purpose of mutating the revenue record is itself lacking bona- 1de and in view thereof, the learned SSRD is not justi1ed in rejecting the Revision Application, when the petitioner no.4 was not a signatory to the said document nor was present when the so called consent for mutating the revenue entry so far as it C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 concerned with respect to relinquishing of the share of the petitioners is concerned.

5.4. It is submitted that the respondent no.4 who happens to be a brother of the petitioners, upon demise of their father, obtained signature of the petitioners on blank papers under the pretext that the signature is being obtained for getting the names of the legal heirs including the names of the petitioners in the record of rights, whereas, upon perusing the 7/12 extracts, on 07.08.2014, the petitioners came to know the truth, and thereafter, the petitioners immediately approached the Deputy Collector and challenged the revenue entry no. 9991, which was thereafter, set aside by the Deputy Collector, by holding that when there was a fraud committed, while mutating the revenue entry no. 9991, the aspect of delay would not matter nor come into play, upon the party deriving the knowledge of such fraud. It is reiterated that the order passed by the Deputy Collector is just and proper.

5.5. It is submitted that the petitioners are only aggrieved by the second part of the entry, wherein, petitioners herein seeking mutation of their names as legal heirs of the deceased Thakorbhai, one entry cannot bare two orders.

5.6. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that, the prayers as prayed for in the present petition C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 be allowed.

6.1. Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.4, relied on the aIdavit-in-reply duly produced at page-140 and submitted that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have rightly concluded that the petitioners have incurred gross delay in preferring the Appeal before the revenue authorities, i.e. after a period of 12 years and therefore, the dispute raised by the petitioners before the revenue authorities suJers from delay and latches and is not maintainable.

6.2. It is submitted that, it is not in dispute that the mutation entry no. 9991 in Village Form No.6 was posted on

25.06.2002 and certi1ed on 23.08.2002, whereas, the Appeal before the Deputy Collector, challenging the said entry was 1led after a period of 12 years, i.e. on 11.08.2014. The said delay is not explained either before this Court or before the revenue authorities.

6.3. It is submitted that the petitioners’ Appeal before the Deputy Collector being RTS Appeal No. 311 of 2014 was not accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay, therefore, in absence of such explanation, the Appeal could not have been heard on merits. It is submitted that, the initiation of the proceedings from the very beginning is bad in law. It is submitted that, the petitioners herein are well educated people C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 and inaction on their part for over 12 years is unjusti1ed, mere bald averments on the part of the petitioners that they came to know about the disputed entry, when they perused 7/12 records, in no way justi1es the inordinate delay. In fact, the very action on the part of the petitioners show that they were not interested in pursuing any litigation against the private respondents herein, as the petitioners had duly waived oJ their rights over the disputed lands and merely because of price rise of the lands, the petitioners initiated revenue proceedings against the respondents, which is absolutely unjust and illegal.

6.4. It is submitted that, the Talati-cum-Mantri had issued notice under Section 135-D of the Code and in fact, called upon the petitioners to object the certi1cation of the entry and therefore, such objections taken at a belated stage are baseless.

6.5. It is submitted that, it is on record that the petitioners had consented for removal of their names from the revenue records over the disputed lands, in view of the family arrangement. It is submitted that, mere assertion on the part of the petitioners alleging fraud, without complete details of the same, could not take the case of the petitioners further. It is well settled principle of law that, when a party alleges fraud, he /she has to describe in detail and prove the same. It is submitted that, the petitioners herein also do not dispute the family C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 arrangement, the same having attained 1nality.

6.6. It is submitted that, though the petitioners have claimed to 1le the police complaint against the private respondent, no charge-sheet is 1led, till date and in fact, the status of the police complaint is also not stated by the petitioners.

6.7. Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala, learned advocate relied on the documents produced with the AIdavit-in-Reply, wherein, the copies of the application of posting of entry no. 9991, statement of heirs and consent given by the petitioners to relinquish their rights is produced. Further relied on the notice issued under Section 135-D of entry no. 9991, duly produced at Annexure-R-1 and Annexure-R-2 respectively.

6.8. Reliance is also placed on the MoU, which is duly produced at page-158, which was entered into between the parties on 16.07.1997, duly signed by the petitioners.

6.9. Placing reliance on the aforesaid documents, it is submitted that, the present petition is devoid of merits, the same be dismissed.

7.1. Mr. Parikh, learned AGP has produced copy of the record and has submitted that application for mutation of heirship entry was 1led and their statements were also recorded C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 before the Talati-cum-Mantri which was also signed by all the heirs. It was further submitted that an application-cum- statement for relinquishment of right was also submitted before the Talati-cum-Mantri which was also signed by all the heirs. The notice under Section 135(D) was also issued and the same was countersigned by all the heirs except Shivaniben.

7.2. Learned AGP has also produced power of attorney given by Mrs. Geeta Bharat Kotecha to Mr.Ajit Thakorbhai Desai. Mr. Parikh, learned AGP submits that as per the record, statements were recorded by the Talati-cum-Mantri, and therefore, at this stage the petitioners shall not dispute the same.

7.3. Mr.Parikh, learned AGP supports the orders passed by the authorities and submitted that no error has committed by the authorities while passing the impugned orders, as the same was passed considering the records.

8.1. Mr. Zubin Bharda, learned advocate, in rejoinder, reiterated the contentions raised earlier and submitted that the entry no. 9991 duly produced at Annexure-A which was posted on 25.06.2002 is required to be read with the application seeking heirship entry (pg.153). Mr. Bharda, learned advocate reiterated that the notice under Section 135-D was issued for heirship, then C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 the same cannot be construed as relinquishment. Mr. Bharda, learned advocate reiterated that, the petitioners consent was only for the inheritance entry. The notice was issued for inheritance entry, because the person had died and legal heirs are to be brought on record. The Deputy Collector was therefore justi1ed that the fraud vitiates delay, where there is fraud, there is no question of delay, that is why the private respondent has failed to produce anything on record with respect to the settlement.

9.1. Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala, learned advocate placed on record the Further AIdavit on behalf of the respondent no.4 and placing reliance on the same, submitted that there is no separate application 1led for condonation of delay in RTS Appeal No. 311 of 2014. Additionally, in the appeal memo also, there is no separate prayers for condoning the delay. It is submitted that, it is evident that, no suIcient cause for condoning such signi1cant delay of over 12 years is urged in the memo of appeal. In view thereof, on the limited ground, the proceedings challenging mutation entry no. 9991 are required to be terminated and may not be entertained further on merits. POSITION OF LAW: A. In the case of Ragho Singh v/s. Mohan Singh reported in 2001 (9) SCC 717, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court in C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 Para-6 held thus: “6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Since it is not disputed that the appeal led before the Additional Collector was beyond time by 10 days and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not led for condonation of delay, there was no jurisdiction in the Additional Collector to allow that appeal. The appeal was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The Board of Revenue before which the question of limitation was agitated was of the view that though an application for condonation of delay was not led, the delay shall be deemed to have been condoned. This is patently erroneous. In this situation, the High Court was right in setting aside the Judgement of the Additional Collector as also of the Board of Revenue. We nd no in rmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.” ANALYSIS:

#10. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the documents on record, following emerge: A. It is not in dispute that the agricultural bearing revenue survey nos. 1244/3, 1245/1, 1154/2, 1246/1 to 3, 1246, 592/1, 593/2B, 6107, 592/2, 592/3, 609/5+3, 757+747+748/2 and 751 situated in Village: Umarsadi, Tal.: Pardi, Dist.: Valsad was the ownership of Thakorbhai Naranji Desai, who happened to be the father of the petitioners as well as the respondent no.3 and the grandfather of the respondent nos. 4 to 6 and the father-in-law of the respondent no.7. B. Upon perusal of the documents on record, the C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 application for heirship duly produced by the respondent no.4 alongwith the aIdavit in reply 1led at page-153 and also documents produced by the respondent – State that, upon an application for heirship, the reply of the legal heirs is also attached. There is consent given by the daughters. The pedigree records 10 legal heirs. The notice under Section 135-D of the Code was issued, which was duly signed by the respective parties. The respondent no.4 – Ajitbhai in capacity of power of attorney holder of petitioner no.4- Gitaben signed on her behalf. The Village Form No. 8 was also produced on record. Power of attorney is also produced of petitioner - Gitaben in favour of the respondent no.4 – Ajitbhai. The respondent authority acted in accordance with the provision of Rule-106 and 107 of the Rules. In absence of any objection raised with regard to the mutation entries, the competent authority proceeded to mutate the names in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. Upon perusal of entry no. 9991 dated 25.06.2002, the same records all the 10 legal heirs and also records that the daughters- Rashmiben, Pratimaben, Bhartiben and Gitaben have relinquished their rights, therefore, the names of deceased widow- Rukshmaniben, daughter-in-law Madhuben, granddaughter -Shivaniben, grandson- Krunalbhai, granddaughter- Ankitaben and son Ajitbhai came to be mutated in the revenue record. The competent authority has issued C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 notice, considered the application, reply, panch-kyas, pedigree and consent given by the parties and after all such veri1cation, competent authority has mutated the said entry. C. The petitioners herein invoked Rule-108(5) of the Rules, by preferring Appeal being RTS/Appeal/Pa.Case No. 311/2014, which came to be partly allowed by order dated

21.07.2015, wherein, the Deputy Collector held that, without interfering in the impugned entry no. 9991 mutated in the revenue record on 25.06.2002, further directed to enter the names of the petitioner nos. 1 to 4, as heirship rights in the record of rights. The private respondents preferred RTS/Revision Case No. 122 of 2015 before the Collector, wherein, the Collector vide order dated 26.02.2016 rejected the Revision Application. The respondent preferred second revision before the SSRD being No. MVV/HKP/VLS/54/2016, wherein, by order dated 10.07.2017, the SSRD remanded back the matter to the Collector. The Collector in Revision Application being CB/RTS/Remand Case No. 84 of 2017, quashed the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 21.07.2015, thereby allowing the Revision Application. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Collector, the petitioners preferred Revision before the SSRD being No. MVV/HKP/VLS/64/2018, which was rejected by the SSRD by order dated 26.12.2018. This Court concurs with the 1ndings arrived at C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 by the SSRD, having passed the order in accordance with law and merits. It is apposite to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the order passed by the SSRD dated 26.12.2018, which reads thus: “…….In the written arguments submitted by the applicant, it is stated that the inheritance entry from Note No. 9991 pertaining to Thakorbhai includes a waiving of rights proceeding, which is not legal. The Collector has adopted an approach diEerent from earlier, which is unlawful. It is a fraudulent entry which has not been taken into consideration. Cancellation / reduction of Rights can only be done after the 6rst inheritance entry is approved. Claiming that inheritance was to be done, my brother has obtained signature on blank papers. These issues have been examined and described in detail by the Deputy Collector in his order. The consent reply regarding waiving of rights does not bear the seal of Village Clerk (Talati). The full names of the persons who carried out the procedure of waiving oE the names are not mentioned. The proceedings are suspicious. The Deputy Collector has issued a detailed order. There is no issue of limitation in the “nullity”. Gitaben was in the USA. Her Power of Attorney is general. In the written arguments submitted by the opponents, it is stated that the applicants had no right or authority from the very beginning to 6le an appeal/revision against the disputed Entry No. 9991, and due to legal technical reasons, such an appeal/revision should not have been 6led at all. Nevertheless, the orders passed by the concerned authority are, from the outset, illegal and void. Therefore, the present revision application is liable to be dismissed. Since the applicants had relinquished their rights over the disputed land under a family arrangement, they no longer had any lawful right or authority in that land. Therefore, they had no right or authority from the very beginning to challenge the disputed entry, and the present revision is liable to be dismissed. The applicants 6led the initial appeal before the Deputy Collector against the disputed entry without submitting an application for condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeal was illegal and beyond jurisdiction from the very beginning. If any order has been passed on merits without an application for condonation of delay, such an order is clearly considered a directive passed C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 without authority and beyond jurisdiction. In support of this, we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reported in 2009 GLH (3) page 372, delivered by Justice D. A. Mehta. As per this judgment, the order of the Deputy Collector is to be treated as a void (nullity) order. Even though the family settlement was fully implemented in 1997, the applicants have challenged the entry only after land prices increased and their intentions changed. After the disputed Entry No. 9991 was recorded in the village oIce in the revenue records, a notice under Section 135(D) of the Land Revenue Code was issued to the present applicants. This notice was duly served to the applicants, and they had also con6rmed its receipt. Their statements were also recorded. Their consent statement regarding name reduction was also taken. A pedigree (genealogical tree) was also drawn. After verifying all these details, the Executive Magistrate of Pardi had certi6ed the entry. Since all legal procedures were properly and correctly followed, the entry has been duly certi6ed. It is true, correct, proper, and carried out in accordance with the law. rights regarding relinquishing Before certifying the disputed entry, the statements of the present applicants were recorded. They had voluntarily submitted a statement reduction/deletion of their names and had gaiven their consent, and accordingly, their names were deleted. mistake or wrongdoing has been occurred while making or certifying the entry. If anything had been done wrong (during that time), then the applicants would not have remained silent for 12 years; they could have raised objections to the entry at that time itself. But the applicants did not do so. Hence, the entry was certi6ed with the full consent of the present applicants, and it was noted and certi6ed with their complete knowledge. Therefore, Therefore, the applicants had no lawful right or authority to challenge the entry after 12 years. Even then, the Deputy Collector proceeded with the appeal and passed an order without considering the evidence produced, the established legal principles, or applying his mind. That order is, from the very beginning, wrong, illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. As the appeal has been adjudicated contrary to law right from beginning and the whole chapter has been arisen on the basis of an order of nullity nature, it should not be taken into consideration and the order certifying the C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 Entry No. 9991, passed by the Exe. Magistate (Mamlatdar), Pardi, may be held to be true, bona6de and as per law. No error has been committed in admitting or certifying the entry. If succession is admitted in the village records and if the rights of voluntary nature are deleted by virtue of the entry, it is neither wrong nor contrary to law. Successors can get their names deleted from the records of right voluntarily vide an entry at the time of eEecting the succession. Nothing is wrong therein. On this count too, the entry is bona6de and legal. After the entry in question came to be admitted, all the parties have been issued notices under Section 135(D)(2) which have been duly served to them and duly signed by all the parties, including the present applicant. Therefore, the present applicants were completely aware about admitting of the entry. Despite that, the applicants neither raised any objection nor took any action at that time. On the contrary, they have given a submission before the Talati-Cum-Mantri and consented, voluntarily, the deletion of their names/ relinquishment of their rights. They have given their statements before the Talati-cum-Mantri (Village Clerk). Therefore, the fact as to being unaware about admitting of the entry is not admissible under any circumstances and because of that, the applicants have deliberately not preferred an application for delay condonation. The applicants were aware of the entry in question, right from beginning. Therefore, as the applicants have come with dusty hands from beginning, their representation should not be taken into consideration. None of the reliefs prayed by the applicants may be granted. The order upholding the entry in question has been issued also on this count, which is true, bona6de and as per law. The applicants themselves admit that we the respondents had obtained their signatures on some of the papers by conveying them that the procedure as to succession was to be undertaken. However, in reality, the applicants had voluntarily put their signatures before the Village Clerk (Talati-cum-Mantri) in connection with the Entry No. 9991. They are the applicants themselves who signed their statements and consent declarations. They are completely aware about the entry. In the case on hand, there is no sale-deed or any other deed warranting a compulsory registration. C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 In the present case, there are blood relatives of lineal succession who have relinquished their right. There is no execution of a sell. It is a family-settlement between successors. As provided under Section 17 of the Family Settlement Registration Act, registration is not compulsory. One of the applicants, Rashmiben Thakorbhai Desai, had given a noteworthy before Pardi Police Station, wherein no complaint has been admitted. Neither any charge-sheet has been 6led nor any action has been taken therein. Perusing the Revision Application presented by the applicant, written arguments and the impugned order of the Collector, the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeal), Ahmedabad, vide the order No. MVV/HKP/VLS/54/2016 dated 10/07/2017, held that it is the Civil Court who can determine whether the successors are bona6de or not. The Settlement was executed in 1997, wherein the right has been relinquished. Therefore, it is barred by Principle of Estoppel. The succession entry of the year 2002 has been challenged after 12 years. No reasonable grounds for delay appear. Therefore, the point of the delay is required to be taken into consideration. The law aids vigilant. SuIcient reason is required to condone the delay. The entry made in the year 2010 upon death of the mother has not been challenged by the respondents. Registration is not required in the family partition as per the circular of the State Government. Moreover, no charge-sheet has been 6led in the police complaint. The judgments produced by the applicant are required to be taken into consideration. Thus, the case is remanded back to decide afresh the matter considering the provisions of the law after verifying the records and considering the evidences produced herein on the merits after hearing the parties as discussed above by partly allowing the submission of the applicant. It is not contended in the written arguments produced by the respondents in the present remand case as to whether the heirs are true or false. Memorandum of Understanding was executed in the year 1997, which has not been rebutted by the respondent. It is also not rebutted that there are no signatures of respondent no.1 to 3 except of respondent no.4 in the consent reply for removal of names. It is stated that the applicant himself has made the signature of respondent no.4. It is stated that the names have been removed by obtaining signature of the respondents by fraud. He states that he made signature. He states C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 that a complaint was given at Pardi Police Station for the fraud. It is not stated as to whether charge-sheet has been 6led therein or not and as to what is the current status of the same. Signature was made before the Talati for removal of names. After giving consent to remove the name once, it cannot be entered again. It is barred by the Principle of Estoppel. The respondent can get the relief for the same through Civil Court. No application for condonation of delay has been 6led before the Deputy Collector. It is stated that registration is mandatory for the document of release of the rights. However, there was a provision to not ask for the registered document to release the right in the family property, as mentioned in the resolution dated 01/12/2003 of the revenue department of the Government. Therefore, considering the above points for the remand, the impugned order of the Deputy Collector, Pardi does not appear liable to be con6rmed. As the dispute of the respondent is of civil nature, it cannot be accepted. It is correct conclusion by the Collector, revenue entry is for 6scal purposes. Legality of the document relating to the Right / Interest / Succession is decided by the Civil Court. The case was remanded from this oIce and it is decided after considering its details / directions, material records and legal provisions. Entry No.9991 made in the Year 2000, was certi6ed on the basis of due process of law such as notice to the applicant, consent statement before the Talati regarding voluntary waiver of rights and material papers. It is submitted that no registered document is required as per the Registration Act for Family Arrangement. There are no reasonable grounds for challenging the said entry after a delay of 12 years. Charge-sheet is not 6led for the fraud. The objection raised after release of right is barred by the Estoppel. Memorandum of Understanding of the year 1997 is in force and the same has not been revoked. The law aids for the vigilant. SuIcient ground is to be proved to condone the delay. If no suIcient ground is produced, even short delay cannot be condoned. The judgments of Hon’ble High Court in the cases of (1) Navuben D/o. Rakhaji Dalaji versus Mangaji Rakhaji Kanabi in SCA No.2135/2017 dated 27/04/2018 (2) Heirs of Sumrabhai Khimbhai Vagh versus Secretary (Appeal), Revenue Department in SCA No.9135/2018 dated 21/06/2018 (3) Suthar Vihabhai Manabhai versus State of Gujarat in SCA No.9185/2013 dated 24/08/2018 and (4) Anilbhai Bhagwandas Thakkar versus State of Gujarat in SCA No.16518/2013 dated 24/08/2018 are required to be taken into C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 consideration. Thus, considering the merits, the submission of the applicant is not acceptable. Therefore, following order is hereby passed. |ORDER| The Revision Application of the applicant is hereby rejected and the Order No.CB/RTS/Remand No.84/2017 dated 10/09/2018 of the Collector, Valsad / Collector, Surat is hereby con6rmed. It was pronounced in the Open Court on 26/12/2018. Under my signature and stamp, today on 17/01/2019.” D. Considering the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court also, the petitioners preferred an RTS Appeal No. 311 of 2014 under Rule- 108 (5) of the Code, before the Deputy Collector, after a delay of more than 12 years. Upon perusal of the record of the Appeal, duly produced at page-170, it is evident that there was no separate application accompanying the Appeal for condonation of delay nor was there any separate prayer for condoning the delay, nor there is any explanation, explaining the delay of 12 years by the petitioners. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to Rule-108 (5) of the Rules, which reads thus: “Rule 108(5): An appeal against an order under this rule shall, if the order has been made by the Mamlatdar's First Karkun, the Mamlatdar, the District Inspector or Revenue OIcer of lower rank than that of a Deputy Collector lie to the Sub-Divisional OIcer, or to an oIcer appointed by the State Government in this behalf, and if the order has been made by the Sub-Divisional OIcer, the Superintendent of Land Records OIce of a rank not lower than that of a Deputy Collector, to the Collector: such appeal shall be presented within sixty days from the date on which the copy of the order was served on the appellant or was otherwise intimated to him: C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 Provided that the appellate authority may after recording its reasons in writing admit an appeal after the aforesaid period of sixty days if it is satis6ed that the appellant had suIcient cause for not presenting the appeal within such period. Subject to the provisions of [61][sub-rules (6) and (6A)] the decision of the appellate authority shall be 6nal. There shall be no appeal against the order of the Collector. No second appeal shall lie in any case.” E. Admittedly, as held by the SSRD in the facts of the present case, the entry under challenge being entry no. 9991 is posted in the revenue record as back as on 25.06.2002 with respect to the lands as referred to herein-above before the Deputy Collector, after a delay of 12 years. The said entry attained 1nality, as also the consent deed/ Samjuti Karar was also not disputed by the petitioners, which was entered into between the petitioners and respondent as back as in the year 1997. The impugned order passed by the SSRD requires no interference, having held that the petitioners have failed the test of reasonableness of time, the entry no. 9991 which was posted as back as in the year 2002 is challenged after a period of 12 years. It also emerges that the SSRD also considered that the parties had arrived at a family arrangement, which does not require a registered document. The family arrangement / consent deed has also attained 1nality. F. The order passed by the SSRD also records that the C/SCA/2493/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 petitioners had signed before the Talati and given their consent that they will not record their name again in the revenue record, and that is a bar of promissory estoppel. The aforesaid is a 1nding of fact recorded by the SSRD. G. In absence of any arbitrariness or illegalities in the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities, no case is made out to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. H. In the opinion of this Court, the reasons assigned by the SSRD and Collector require no interference.

#11. For the reasons as referred to herein-above, no case is made out to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction to invoke Article-226 and / or supervisory jurisdiction under Article-227 of the Constitution of India. The present Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Rule is discharged. Pradhyuman/ (VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.