JAYANT PATEL, J. ( 1 ) THE short facts of the case are that one Mir Gulambabakhan was holding the agricultural land and his wives were also holding the agricultural land. The declaration was filed by Mir Gulambabakhan who is now deceased under Gujarat agricultural Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act") and in the said declaration the agricultural land held by him as well as by his wives were shown as holding. It appears that on the basis of the said declaration, the Mamlatdar and ALT processed the case and as per the order dated 23. 12. 1982 the land admeasuring 22 acres and 16 gunthas, equivalent non- irrigated land admeasuring 44 acres 32 gunthas was declared as surplus land. The legal heirs of the deceased preferred appeal before the Assistant Collector being Appeal no. 99/1983 and in the said Appeal as per the order dated 5/7/1983, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar and ALT. It appears that the mamlatdar and ALT after remand reconsidered the matter and passed the order on 29/1/1983, whereby the non- irrigated land admeasuring 44- acres and 05 gunthas was declared as surplus land. It appears that the legal heirs of the deceased once again preferred appeal before Dy. Collector against the order of Mamlatdar and the said appeal as per the order dated 30th September, 1983 of the Dy. Collector is dismissed. Legal heirs of the deceased further carried the matter before the gujarat Revenue Tribunal by preferring revision and in the said revision the learned tribunal as per the decision dated 27/12/1989 remanded the matter to the mamlatdar for verification of the canal certificate and irrigation of the land in presence of the parties to the proceedings. It appears that thereafter the Mamlatdar and ALT once again considered the matter and the Mamlatdar and ALT proceeded for verification of the canal certificate of the petitioners. It has been recorded by the mamlatdar and ALT that when the concerned Officer was directed to verify the aspects regarding the irrigations of the land in question, the legal heirs of the deceased were informed by the intimation dated 14. 6. 1990, 27. 6. 1990, 26. 7. 1990, 30. 7. 1990, 3. 11. 1990 and 12. 9. It has been recorded by the mamlatdar and ALT that when the concerned Officer was directed to verify the aspects regarding the irrigations of the land in question, the legal heirs of the deceased were informed by the intimation dated 14. 6. 1990, 27. 6. 1990, 26. 7. 1990, 30. 7. 1990, 3. 11. 1990 and 12. 9. 1990 to remain personally present at the time when the verification of the canal certificate was to be made by the Officer concerned, however, it appears that the legal heirs of the deceased who were required to remain present did not remain present and the Officer thereafter proceeded for verification and ultimately it was reported that the certificate is correct after verification. The Mamlatdar further considered that the land was held by the deceased Mir Gulambabakhan and his wife afzulunnissabegum. It was found by the mamlatdar that as per the canal certificate, the land admeasuring 35 acres and 10 gunthas is seasonally irrigated and there was no "issue" either son or daughter in the family and the family comprised of husband and two wives, total three members and, therefore, one unit was permitted and the land held by the family of the deceased after conversion in accordance with law was found as 71 acres and 53 gunthas. The retainable land was permitted and the land admeasuring 44 acres and 05 gunthas as per the calculation on the basis of non-irrigated land were declared as surplus land by the order dated 26. 11. 1990 of the Mamlatdar and ALT. ( 2 ) IT appears that the legal heirs of the deceased were intimated by registered a. D. post regarding the order of the mamlatdar for declaration of the land as surplus land and they were called upon to hand over the possession of the land which was declared as surplus. It appears that as per the finding recorded by the Dy. Collector in the appeal as well as by the revenue Tribunal in the revision, the intimation by the Mamlatdar through registered A. D. post was received, however, the appeal was not preferred within the prescribed period of limitation. It appears that after about 90 days, the appeal was preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased, who are as such not legal heirs, but they claimed that the property is bequeathed and gifted to them. The said appeal being appeal no. It appears that after about 90 days, the appeal was preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased, who are as such not legal heirs, but they claimed that the property is bequeathed and gifted to them. The said appeal being appeal no. 4/1991 was heard by the Dy. Collector and it was found by the Collector that in spite of the intimation, the appeal was not preferred within the period of limitation and even when the proceedings before the mamlatdar were conducted; the petitioners did not remain present. It was also recorded that even before the Dy. Collector when the appeal was to be heard the lawyer of the petitioners did not remain present. The dy. Collector found that after intimation through registered A. D. post, as the appeal was not preferred within the statutory period of limitation, the appeal was dismissed. It appears that the petitioner further carried the matter before the revenue Tribunal by preferring revision no. 578/1991. The learned Tribunal also found that the postal A. D. slip regarding intimation to the legal heirs of the deceased was there on record and in spite of the same false representation is made that they came to know about the intimation of the order of the Mamlatdar only on 3. 6. 1991 and, therefore, the Tribunal found that one who makes false representation in the present proceedings cannot be given benefits of his own wrong and it was further found that the order passed by the Dy. Collector for dismissing the appeal as time barred, was Just and proper: It was also found by the Tribunal that there was no application for condonation of delay and the party who has made false representation cannot be allowed to take undue benefits and, therefore, the prayer for condonation of delay cannot be accepted. Ultimately, the tribunal has dismissed the revision as per the order dated 25th September, 1992 and it is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by preferring this petition. ( 3 ) HEARD Mr. Sunil Mehta, learned counsel for Mr. Bukhari for the petitioners and Mr. Prachchhak, learned AGP for the respondent authority. ( 4 ) MR. MEHTA, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was only delay of 90 days in preferring the appeal before the Dy. Collector and the Tribunal has not leniently viewed the delay and the delay was not condoned. Bukhari for the petitioners and Mr. Prachchhak, learned AGP for the respondent authority. ( 4 ) MR. MEHTA, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was only delay of 90 days in preferring the appeal before the Dy. Collector and the Tribunal has not leniently viewed the delay and the delay was not condoned. He further submitted that this Court nay condone the delay and may direct the Dy. Collector to hear the appeal on merits. He also submitted that in the matter of condonation of delay, the lenient view is to be taken and, therefore, the matter may be remanded to the Dy. Collector for hearing of the appeal on merits. ( 5 ) AS the agricultural land ceiling proceedings were decided for the first time in 1982 and in view of the development referred to hereinabove, twice the matters were already remanded and with a view to see that the writ nay not be issued in fuitility by this Court, I have also called upon Mr. Mehta to make submissions on merits of the legality and validity of the order passed by the Mamlatdar. In response thereto, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Mehta was that if the wife of the deceased, Mir Gulambabakhan was holding the land, she is entitled for separate unit. However, Mr. Mehta has not been able to show any justification oh the part of the petitioner in not remaining present when the canal certificate was to be verified in pursuance of the order passed by the tribunal, before Mamlatdar and ALT. As such the order dated 27. 12. 1989 passed by the Tribunal is for remand only on the point of verification of the canal certificate. In this regard, the perusal of the relevant portion of earlier order dated 27. 12. 1989 passed by the Tribunal in the proceedings of Revision No. 564/1987, is as under :"in the result, it is a tenancy case which should be remanded to the Mamlatdar and ALT for rehearing, who is directed to obtain certificate from the Canal Officer who in turn should keep the parties present when he prepares the certificates and hear them and thereafter prepare the certificate. The learned Mamlatdar and ALT is also directed to give opportunity to lead further evidence whatsoever they want. " ( 6 ) THEREAFTER the matter is remanded to the Mamlatdar. The learned Mamlatdar and ALT is also directed to give opportunity to lead further evidence whatsoever they want. " ( 6 ) THEREAFTER the matter is remanded to the Mamlatdar. Therefore, as such the remand was only for the canal certificate and hearing while verifying/issuing the canal certificate. As recorded earlier, the dy. Engineer, Shri V V Gohil, Sisoya Canal department, Kosambha had intimated to the legal heirs of the deceased by letter dated 14. 6. 1990, 27. 6. 1990, 26. 7. 1990, 30. 7. 1990, 3. 11. 1990 and 12. 11. 1990 to remain present at the time of verification of the irrigation of the land in question and for the verification of the canal certificate. However, none of the legal heirs of the deceased, who are petitioners herein have remained present and, therefore, ultimately the Officer had to conclude that the petitioners herein are agreeable with the irrigation certificate which was issued by the Department and the concerned Officer has also stated that after his personal verification, the certificate has been issued regarding the irrigation of the land in question. Therefore, as such when the certificate is found to be genuine by the mamlatdar, the petitioners herein now cannot be allowed to contend that since separate units were permissible on account of separate living of the wife, the order passed by the Mamlatdar is suffering from legal infirmities. ( 7 ) EVEN if such a contention of the petitioner is considered for the purpose of examination on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to raise the contention for two units, then also it is pertinent to note that the deceased Mir Gulambabakhan in his declaration has included the holding of agricultural land of his another wife afzulunnissabegum and, therefore, when there was no separate declaration form filed by Afzulunnissabegum for her separate unit and when the deceased himself considered afzulunnissabegum another wife in his family for the purpose of holding of the agricultural land, such a contention on the part of the petitioner can hardly be accepted on the ground that the wife afzulunnissabegum was staying separately. Further, no evidence is led for such purpose, nor even such contention is raised in the memo of appeal. It appears that as the deceased was Muslim, he had two wives and another wife namely; Afzulunnissabegum was also holding the agricultural land. Further, no evidence is led for such purpose, nor even such contention is raised in the memo of appeal. It appears that as the deceased was Muslim, he had two wives and another wife namely; Afzulunnissabegum was also holding the agricultural land. As per the provisions of the Act, if the family comprised of members not exceeding five, then irrespective of religion of the holder of the land one unit is permissible and one unit has been granted by the Mamlatdar for holding the land and only land exceeding one unit is declared as surplus land for the purpose of the Act. Therefore, even if such contention of the petitioner is examined, it cannot be said that the order passed by the mamlatdar is suffering from any legal infirmities. ( 8 ) UNDER the above circumstances, as on merits, there is no case of the petitioner for assailing/upsetting the order passed by the Mamlatdar. In view of the reasons recorded hereinabove, as it cannot be said that the order passed by the mamlatdar is illegal or it suffering from any legal infirmities, no useful purpose would be served in considering the matter for condonation of delay and for remanding the appeal for hearing on merits after a period of about 13 years. It also appears that throughout in the proceedings before the Tribunal and before this court, no stay order has been granted against the operation of the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT declaring the land as surplus land and as observed earlier the litigation is pending since 1982 and a period of about 23 years has passed and, therefore, I find that if there is no merit in the principal challenge to the order passed by the mamlatdar and ALT, merely because in the condonation of delay lenient view normally should be taken, writ does not deserve to be issued by this Court which consequently results into no useful purpose, except delay in litigation further. ( 9 ) EVEN otherwise also, the perusal of the order passed by the Dy. Collector in appeal as well as the Tribunal shows that the petitioners were intimated regarding the order of the Mamlatdar and the acknowledgement received was also produced on record and in spite of the same a false representation was made by petitioners that they had come to know about the order, on 3. 6. 1999. Collector in appeal as well as the Tribunal shows that the petitioners were intimated regarding the order of the Mamlatdar and the acknowledgement received was also produced on record and in spite of the same a false representation was made by petitioners that they had come to know about the order, on 3. 6. 1999. Therefore, there is not only a callous approach on the part of the petitioners in pursuing the litigation, but the same is with circumstances of making false declaration and representation in the proceedings of the appeal before the Dy. Collector and also in the proceedings before the Revenue Tribunal. If a litigant has made any false declaration and/or representation before the authority, and if on account of the same, the matter is not leniently viewed in condonation of delay, it cannot be said that any Jurisdictional error is committed by the lower authority in not condoning the delay, nor can it be said that the discretion exercised by the lower authority is so perverse which deserves to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the power under article 227 of the Constitution. The aforesaid is coupled with the circumstances that even before the Canal Officer and before the mamlatdar and ALT, number of opportunities were granted to the petitioners and the same were not availed of. Such litigants who have only intention to delay the proceedings of declaration of the land as surplus land under the Act and thereby to make the land non- available to the Government for distribution to the landless persons cannot be allowed even otherwise invoke extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of the writ. ( 10 ) IN view of the above, petition fails. Hence, the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to a costs. .