ORDER : R.M CHHAYA, J. Heard Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners and Mr. Anshin Desai, learned advocate with Ms. Venu Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 9. Though served, no one appears for respondent no. 10. 2. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 12.4.2012 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application no. MVV/JMN/JND/91/2009, whereby the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) was pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the District Collector, Junagadh being order no. Land/1.C/7883/12009. 3. Following facts emerge from the record of the petition:- That, respondent nos. 1 to 9 herein jointly purchased land baring survey no. 26/1 situated at Village Zanzarda, Taluka District Junagadh which is now situated within the local limits of Junagadh Municipal Corporation from its joint owners of Ismail Mamad by a registered sale deed dated 18.3.2002 registered under no. 1384 and entry no. 1935 was also mutated in the name of respondent nos. 1 to 9 which came to be certified on 4.5.2002 The sale deed as well as the entries reflect the area of the land in question to be 7 acres and 18 gunthas. After the respondents no. 1 to 9 purchased the said property on the basis of the previous revenue records, the area of the land in question on the basis of the report of DILR, Junagadh was rectified from 7 acres and 18 gunthas to 9 acres and 19 gunthas and even the entry to that effect was mutated in the revenue records. The record indicates that respondent nos. 1 to 9 applied for N.A Permission with the competent authority i.e. District Development Officer, Junagadh for a layout of residential purpose which was granted by the competent authority vide his order dated 3.9.2002 and an entry to that effect was mutated in the revenue record being entry no. 2066 dated 4.9.2002 which came to be certified on 24.12.2002 The record indicates that the lands so purchased by the private respondents and developed by the private respondents was measured by DILR, Junagadh on 18.10.2008, 4.12.2008 and 6.12.2008 and on the basis of the said survey, it was found that area of 9 acres and 19 gunthas i.e. 38334 sq. mtrs. mtrs. has already been transferred by the private respondents in favour of one Fulvatika Developers and N.A permission has already been granted. The record indicates that on the basis of the said report of DILR, a show cause notice came to be issued to the private respondents dated 30.6.2009 The private respondents were heard by the Collector which culminated into an order dated 10.8.2009 whereby the District Collector came to the conclusion that that the private respondents who are partners of a firm known as Fulvatika Developers, Junagadh have encroached upon the land as indicated in the show cause notice and directed the concerned authority to take steps for removal of such encroachment. The private respondents herein challenged the said order by way of filing a Revision as provided under Section 211 before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) which came to be registered as Revision Application no. MVV/JMN/JND/91/09 which came to be allowed by an order dated 12.4.2012 Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition came to be filed by State of Gujarat as well as the Collector and Mamlatdar under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India which has been lodged before this Court on 13.10.2015 The petitioners through one Jitendra Rami has filed an additional affidavit on 11.3.2016 and have brought on record the further documents. The private respondents have filed a detailed affidavit-in-reply and have brought on record copies of the original revenue records as well as the current position of the land in question and the said affidavit has not been controverted further by the petitioners. 4. Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners has taken this Court through the order passed by the Collector and the contents of the additional affidavit and has raised the following contentions:- [a] That, the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) has erred in coming to the conclusion that there is no encroachment. [b] It is also contended that the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) has taken a very technical view. It was further contended that the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) has not considered that the measurement on revenue survey no. 2 6 admeasuring 24 Hectors and 0.4 guntha has not matched with the measurement produced by the respondents and therefore, it is crystal clear that the respondents have encroached upon the Government land to the tune of 2 acres and 1 guntha. 2 6 admeasuring 24 Hectors and 0.4 guntha has not matched with the measurement produced by the respondents and therefore, it is crystal clear that the respondents have encroached upon the Government land to the tune of 2 acres and 1 guntha. It was also contended that the development undertaken by the private respondents is totally illegal and against the provisions of law. It was further contended that the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to decide the show cause notice which was issued by the competent authority pursuant to the order of the Collector dated 10.8.2009 and therefore, the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) has exceeded the jurisdiction under Section 211 of the Code. It is contended that the considering the area which is 7 acres and 18 gunthas, the private respondents cannot get a better title than the original owner and on that ground, the impugned order is bad and illegal and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. It was lastly contended that there is some delay because of administrative procedure and therefore, the same may be condoned. 5. Per contra, Mr. Anshin H. Desai, learned advocate with Ms. Venu Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 9 has supported the order impugned. It is contended that the present petition is filed after a delay of more than 3 years and on that count alone, the petition deserves to be dismissed. In order to buttress the said argument, Mr. Desai has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 . It is contended that during the year 2002 to 2008, the private respondents have already developed the land in question and the equities have changed. It is contended that the petition raises disputed question of fact and also suffers from vice of suppression of material facts and has also objected to the terminology of encroachment and fraud and has submitted that there are nothing but wild allegations against the private respondents without there being any data or proof thereof. It is contended that the petition raises disputed question of fact and also suffers from vice of suppression of material facts and has also objected to the terminology of encroachment and fraud and has submitted that there are nothing but wild allegations against the private respondents without there being any data or proof thereof. It is further contended that since the very initiation of the show cause notice, the order of Collector and the present petition is nothing but a twisted version of all facts and the Collector has just alleged without proper examination of the original records and more particularly the record which existed prior to the promulgation i.e. before 1975. [a] It was contended that the private respondents have purchased the land in question by a sale deed, wherein it is clearly stated that the area of survey no. 26 admeasuring 7 acres and 18 gunthas which is also clearly mentioned in the revenue record, the same shall be on ‘as is where is basis’ as the discrepancy was not rectified in the revenue record as per the measurement which actually existed before the promulgation which took place in the year 1975. Mr. Desai contended that the whole proceedings have been initiated with a malafide intention to harass the respondents by the petitioner no. 2 in particular ignoring the earlier position of the revenue record which in fact ought to have been corrected Suo Motu by the revenue authorities based on revenue records which existed prior to promulgation in the year 1975. [b] It is also contended that on coming to know about the discrepancy in the measurement and on the basis of the revenue record, more particularly Puravani Patrak no. 8, wherein the area of survey no. 26 part which is purchased by the private respondents is shown as 9 acres and 19 gunthas, the DILR made measurement and gave his report on 27.6.2002 and thereafter, the entry no. 2023 came to be mutated which was examined by the authorities and the said entry came to be certified on 29.7.2002 [c] It was contended that thus, after a period of 6 years, show cause notice came to be issued and as such action is therefore barred in law as time barred as the same is not initiated after reasonable period. [d] It was contended that while granting N.A permission as provided under Section 65 of the Code, the competent authority namely District Development Officer verified the area and the material for the same which was produced by private respondents as applicants before it and thereafter, the same has been granted. Mr. Desai relying upon the opinion which was given by the Deputy Collector dated 5.5.2009 to the District Development Officer contended that the area of survey no. 26/1 which is the land in question matches with the measurement sheet of 1975. It is submitted that still however, such documents which were very much on record have been ignored by the Collector while passing the order which was impugned in the revision. It was contended that before passing the order impugned, the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) has not only verified the record but had in fact even got it verified by all concerned authorities and thereafter, the impugned order is passed. It is contended that as averred in the affidavit-in-reply only because there was discrepancy, the same would not mean that the respondents are encroachers. Mr. Desai reiterated that Durasti in the revenue record has to be carried out and if any mistake is there, it is the duty of the revenue authorities more particularly the petitioners herein to make such Durasti based upon the original measurement of the land in question which existed prior to its promulgation in 1975, wherein Puravani Patrak no. 8 as well as Hissa Form clearly state that the area of the land in question was and is 9 acres and 19 gunthas. It is therefore submitted that the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) has not committed any error much less any error apparent on the face of the record which requires interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well as on merits and the order passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) deserves to be confirmed even on grounds of equity. 6. No other or further contentions and/or submissions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. 6. No other or further contentions and/or submissions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. Before considering the submissions made by both the sides, it would be appropriate to refer to the following facts which emerge from the record of the petition:- [a] The revenue records as it stood in on 11.6.1924 shows name of Meghji Parbat and Karamshi Mulji (Page 116 Annexure-III) [b] Hissa Mapani (measurement form no. 15A) shows that the land in question was survey no. 62 6 and Hissa No. 1 admeasuring 9 acres and 19 gunthas and name of Ismail Mamad which according to the copy bears remark that the Patrak is cancelled with effect from 27.8.2011 (Page 119) [c] Hissa Form No. 12 of 1976 shows the area as survey no. 26, Hissa Form No. 1 admeasuring 9 acres and 19 gunthas and name of Ismail Mamad Kachara. Even Hissa Form No. 4 at Annexure-I Page 123 shows name of the respondents as regards survey no. 26/1 admeasuring 9 acres and 19 gunthas with a remark that it is as per Puravani Patrak No. 8. [d] The report of DILR, Junagadh dated 25.6.2002 addressed to Talati-cum-Mantri records which is the basis of entry no. 2023 which came to be mutated on 2 9.7.2002 also shows survey no. 2 6 paiki admeasuring 9 acres and 19 gunthas. The aforesaid records are the Government records. 8. The aforesaid facts can be culled out also from the revenue records such as form no. 15A and 12 which are forming part of the record of this petition at Page 118 as well as Hissa Form no. 4 at Page 119. It also clearly appears that when the promulgation took place in the year 1975, the area of the land in question clearly mentioned as 7 acres and 18 gunthas which if compared with the aforesaid facts, figures of the area in question differs. The fact remains that the same is as per 7/12 extracts on the basis of which the land in question is purchased in which Paragraph 1 of the sale deed recites “as is where is basis”. The petitioners have also brought on record by way of an additional affidavit which is dated 25.6.2002 at Annexure-R2 to the said additional affidavit which recites the fact that the area of Hissa Form no. The petitioners have also brought on record by way of an additional affidavit which is dated 25.6.2002 at Annexure-R2 to the said additional affidavit which recites the fact that the area of Hissa Form no. 4 before the promulgation in 1975 shows area on survey no. 26/1 as 9 acres and 19 gunthas and therefore, Durasti is not implemented and the petitioners have also brought on record at Annexure-R3 to the additional affidavit being entry no. 2023 which recites about implementation of the said letter dated 25.6.2002 passed by the DILR. It is an admitted position that the show cause notice is dated 30.6.2009 i.e. almost after a 6 years. On perusal of the show cause notice, though the said facts have been considered and the earlier entries have been mentioned, the same was not considered by the Collector while passing the order. On perusal of order passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) has considered the revenue records right from 1924 onwards and has also considered the subsequent transfers and entries to that effect and has considered the fact that the entries which are relied upon by the private respondents is not at all taken into revision or disturbed. The Secretary has also considered the fact that even in Hissa measurement report form no. 11, the area is mentioned as 9 acres and 19 gunthas. The aforesaid facts therefore clearly makes it clear that the conclusion reached by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) is based upon the original record before promulgation of the petitioners themselves and the same cannot be termed and called an error apparent on the face of the record. It is no doubt true that in the sale deed which is executed by the erstwhile owner in favour of the private respondents, the area of the land in question was mentioned as 7 acres and 18 gunthas. However, as observed earlier and as rightly contended by Mr. Desai that in the sale deed itself in Paragraph 1, it is noted that it is on “as is where is basis”. However, as observed earlier and as rightly contended by Mr. Desai that in the sale deed itself in Paragraph 1, it is noted that it is on “as is where is basis”. It is a matter of fact that by an order dated 3.9.2002, lands were developed by the private respondents and converted the agricultural land to non-agricultural i.e. residential purpose, lands have been plotted and have already been transferred whereas the show cause notice was issued after 6 years and the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) has also noted that the area of the land in question is fully constructed. At the first blush, though it appears that the area of the land in question as per the revenue records and the sale deed is 7 acres and 18 gunthas, there is no discrepancy to the tune of 2 acres and 1 guntha. However, on examination of the original record, it clearly appears that as per the DILR record, Hissa Form no. 4 as well as Puravani Patrak no. 8 and form no. 11, the area which was held by the predecessor of the private respondents was 9 acres and 19 gunthas. In light of the aforesaid therefore, the very basis of the show cause notice that there is encroachment does not find favour from the original record. Only because the records are not updated or when the measurement of 1975 was erroneous to the extent of mentioning the area, the same cannot be termed as measurement that too after a lapse of almost 14 years by now. After the N.A permission was given in the year 2002 as averred in the affidavit-in-reply, the private respondents have transferred all 149 plots to third parties and the land has been almost fully developed and the equities have been created. 9. At this stage, it would be advantageous to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai reported in (2012) 5 SCC 157 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while examining the explanation rendered by the Corporation for delay of 7 years, has been pleased to observe thus:- “14. We have considered the respective arguments/submissions and carefully scrutinized the record. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. We have considered the respective arguments/submissions and carefully scrutinized the record. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the Court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the Legislature. At the same time, the Courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation. 15. The expression “sufficient cause” used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serves the ends of justice. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay but over the years this Court has advocated that a liberal approach should be adopted in such matters so that substantive rights of the parties are not defeated merely because of delay. 23. What needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. 24 What colour the expression “sufficient cause” would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. 25. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. 25. In cases involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision-making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest.” 10. Similarly, in the case of Postmaster General (supra), it has been observed as under:- “27. It is not in dispute that the persons concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitatio when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. “28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.” 11. Similarly, in the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:- “15. The expression “sufficient cause” employed in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector (L.A) v. Katiji, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil. 16. Although, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector (L.A) v. Katiji, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil. 16. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Land Acquisition Officer, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, State of U.P v. Harish Chandra, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu, State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan.” 12. This Court in Special Civil Application no. 10113 of 2012 in an identical fact situation has taken a similar view, against Special Leave to Appeal no. 12743 of 2014 came to be filed, which was dismissed on 22.8.2014 13. This Court (Coram: Ms. Harsha Devani, J.) in Special Civil Application no. 11268 of 2013, relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Postmaster General (supra), Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 , G. Ramegowda, Major v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, (1988) 2 SCC 142 , State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, (1996) 3 SCC 132 and State of U.P v. Harish Chandra, (1996) 9 SCC 309 was pleased to reject the petition filed by the State on ground of delay of three and a half years. The said judgment was carried forward by the State of Gujarat by way of filing Letters Patent Appeal no. 44 of 2015 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.1.2015 Against which, the State preferred Special Leave to Appeal no. The said judgment was carried forward by the State of Gujarat by way of filing Letters Patent Appeal no. 44 of 2015 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.1.2015 Against which, the State preferred Special Leave to Appeal no. 13351 of 2016 which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 25.7.2016 14. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases and other catena of decisions shall squarely apply to the case on hand and it being an admitted position that the actions are taken after a delay of 6 years would be fatal and therefore, on grounds of delay also, the very action deserves to be quashed and set aside. Even the present petition is filed after a lapse of 3 years and more for which except a formal explanation of administrative exigency, nothing is put forward and as such therefore, the present petition also suffers from delay. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition deserves to be dismissed on merits as well as delay. It clearly appears from the order impugned that the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) has taken into consideration all aspects and after proper appreciation of evidence on record and also considering the equities which have been created and after discussing the title as well as the transfer of the land in question right from its original owner to the present respondents and after examining the Government record and the revenue record has rightly allowed the Revision. This Court finds that there is no error much less any error apparent on the face of the record which requires interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 as well as supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed both on merits as well as delay and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.