Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat, through the Deputy Collector, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/15/2017. The Tribunal had allowed the revision filed by the legal heirs of Late Sharafali Ishabhai and Fatmabanu Sharafali, thereby quashing the order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the Deputy Collector and Prant Officer, Dahod in Tenancy Appeal No. 2 of 2014. The core issue was that the revision before the Tribunal was filed against an order of the Mamlatdar and ALT, Dahod dated 17.05.1976, after an inordinate delay of 34 years. The High Court found that the Tribunal grossly erred in entertaining the revision without proper explanation for the delay. The court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised to revive stale claims. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the Tribunal's order, and restored the Deputy Collector's order. The judgment was delivered by Honourable Ms. Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati on 10/02/2026.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Revision - Limitation - Delay of 34 Years - The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal allowed a revision application challenging a Mamlatdar's order dated 17.05.1976 after a delay of 34 years, without adequate explanation. The High Court held that such inordinate delay cannot be condoned lightly and the Tribunal grossly erred in entertaining the revision. The order of the Tribunal was quashed and set aside. (Paras 5-10)
B) Tenancy Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope - The revisional authority under the Tenancy Act cannot interfere with an order passed by the Deputy Collector in appeal unless there is a patent illegality or jurisdictional error. The Tribunal's interference was based on a misreading of facts and law. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal erred in entertaining a revision application filed after a delay of 34 years without proper explanation, and whether the order of the Deputy Collector could be interfered with in revision.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/15/2017, and restored the order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the Deputy Collector and Prant Officer, Dahod in Tenancy Appeal No. 2 of 2014.
Law Points
- Delay in filing revision
- limitation period for revision
- maintainability of revision after inordinate delay
- scope of revisional jurisdiction
- condonation of delay
Case Details
R/Special Civil Application No. 1984 of 2025 with R/Special Civil Application No. 2385 of 2025
Mr. Jayneel Parikh, AGP for Petitioner; Ms. Kruti M. Shah for Respondent Nos. 24-26
State of Gujarat through Deputy Collector & Anr.
LH of Lt Sharafali Ishabhai LH of Lt Fatmabanu Sharafali Wd/o Sharafali Safkat Hussain Sharafali LE & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in a tenancy revision matter.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal order dated 02.06.2017 and restoration of the Deputy Collector's order dated 07.04.2016.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order allowing a revision after a delay of 34 years.
Previous Decisions
Mamlatdar and ALT, Dahod passed order dated 17.05.1976 in Tenancy Appeal No. 419 of 1975; Deputy Collector and Prant Officer, Dahod passed order dated 07.04.2016 in Tenancy Appeal No. 2 of 2014; Gujarat Revenue Tribunal passed order dated 02.06.2017 in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/15/2017.
Issues
Whether the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal erred in entertaining a revision application filed after a delay of 34 years without proper explanation?
Whether the Tribunal's interference with the Deputy Collector's order was justified?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the revision before the Tribunal was filed after an inordinate delay of 34 years, which was not properly explained, and the Tribunal grossly erred in allowing it.
The respondents argued that the Tribunal's order was correct and the delay was condonable.
Ratio Decidendi
A revisional authority under the Tenancy Act cannot entertain a revision application after an inordinate delay of 34 years without proper explanation, as it would revive stale claims and defeat the purpose of limitation.
Judgment Excerpts
the Tribunal grossly erred in interfering with the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Dahod vide order dated 02.06.2017 having allowed the revision preferred by the respondent no. 1 as legal heirs of Late Sharafali Ishabhai and Fatmabanu Sharafali, challenged the order dated 17.05.1976 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Dahod in Tenancy Appeal No. 419 of 1975 after a delay of 34 years
Procedural History
The Mamlatdar and ALT, Dahod passed an order on 17.05.1976 in Tenancy Appeal No. 419 of 1975. The legal heirs of the original tenant filed a revision before the Deputy Collector, who passed an order on 07.04.2016 in Tenancy Appeal No. 2 of 2014. Against that order, the respondents filed a revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which was allowed on 02.06.2017. The State of Gujarat then filed the present Special Civil Application before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:
