JUDGMENT : 1. Both the petitions are between the same parties in respect of the same subject land, and therefore, were ordered to be heard together. So far as the petition being Special Civil Application No. 9279 of 2008 is concerned, the same is directed against the order dated 04.04.2008 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Tenancy Revision Application No. 362 of 1997, as also against the order dated 20.05.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal No. 239 of 1996, whereby the Deputy Collector had set aside the order dated 20.02.1987 passed by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. in the Tenancy Case No. 259 of 1985 registered under Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Tenancy Act'), and had remanded the case to the Mamlatdar for deciding it afresh. 2. The facts of Special Civil Application No. 9279 of 2008 in nutshell are that the subject land bearing Survey No. 1046 paiki admeasuring 13310 sq. yards situated at Mouje Vejalpur, Taluka, City, District Ahmedabad belonged to one Joitaram Khodidas Patel (now deceased). The said Joitaram had executed a sale deed in favour of Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Wadhvan through its trustee Acharyashri Rajendraprasadji on 05.03.1979. The Mamlatdar and ALT had initiated the proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act in the year 1985 on the ground that there was violation of Section 63 of the said Tenancy Act. The said proceedings were registered as Tenancy Case No. 259 of 1985. However, subsequently the Mamlatdar and ALT dropped the said proceedings by withdrawing the said notice issued under Section 84C vide the order dated 20.02.1987. It appears that since the said purchaser Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, was desirous to sell the said land to the petitioners, the said trustee Rajendrprasadji had applied for the permission from the Charity Commissioner. The Charity Commissioner vide the order dated 01.02.1991 granted the said permission (Annexure 'C'). Accordingly, the subject land was sold by the respondent No. 2 through the Power of Attorney holder to the present petitioners by executing the sale deed dated 12.04.1991 (Annexure 'D'). 3. The Charity Commissioner vide the order dated 01.02.1991 granted the said permission (Annexure 'C'). Accordingly, the subject land was sold by the respondent No. 2 through the Power of Attorney holder to the present petitioners by executing the sale deed dated 12.04.1991 (Annexure 'D'). 3. It further appears that the original owner Joitaram, 9 years after the order of Mamlatdar, and 5 years after the sale was made in favour of the petitioners, filed the Tenancy Appeal No. 239 of 1996 before the Deputy Collector challenging the order dated 20.02.1987 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT. The Deputy Collector vide the impugned order dated 20.05.1997 allowed the said appeal, by setting aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, and remanding the case to the Mamlatdar for deciding it afresh. The aggrieved petitioners, therefore had filed the Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. During the pendency of the said Revision Application before the GRT, the original owner Joitaram having expired, his heirs i.e. respondent Nos. 1.1 to 1.4 were substituted. The GRT vide the impugned order dated 04.04.2008 (Annexure 'A') dismissed the said Revision Application filed by the petitioners. The aggrieved petitioners therefore have filed the present Special Civil Application No. 9279 of 2008. 4. So far as the petition being Special Civil Application No. 15504 of 2011 is concerned, the petitioners, who are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Joitaram, (and the respondent Nos. 1.1 to 1.4 in the connected petition), have sought direction for quashing and setting aside the Paramarsh Notification dated 19.11.2008 and have prayed to quash and set aside the Raja chitthi granted to the respondent Nos. 5 to 7, (who are the petitioners in the connected petition) for the development of the land in question. It has been alleged in the petition inter alia that during the pendency of the petition being Special Civil Application No. 9279 of 2008, the said respondent Nos. 5 to 7 had made an application on 23.05.2011 for converting the Survey No. 1046 to Final Plot No. 48/3 to 48/8 in T.P. Scheme No. 51 to the concerned authority, though the High Court had passed the interim order directing the parties to maintain status-quo in the Special Civil Application No. 9279 of 2008. 5 to 7 had made an application on 23.05.2011 for converting the Survey No. 1046 to Final Plot No. 48/3 to 48/8 in T.P. Scheme No. 51 to the concerned authority, though the High Court had passed the interim order directing the parties to maintain status-quo in the Special Civil Application No. 9279 of 2008. According to these petitioners, the respondent – Town Planning Authority while preparing the draft Town Planning Scheme No. 51, had put the reservation in half of the land of Survey No. 1046 for residential purpose, as per the Paramarsh dated 19.11.2008, and therefore, the petition was filed. 5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original owner Joitaram had filed the Appeal before the Collector under Section 74 of the Tenancy Act nine years after the order dated 20.02.1987 was passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT. As per Section 79 of the said Act, such Appeal is required to be filed within sixty days from the date of order passed by the Mamlatdar subject to the provisions contained in the Limitation Act. It transpires from the impugned order dated 20.05.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector that no such application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of gross delay of 9 years was filed by the said owner, and therefore, the Appeal filed by him under Section 74 was not maintainable in the eye of law. In this regard, it is required to be noted that the appeal which was ex facie grossly time barred was not maintainable, without the appellant i.e. the said Joitaram filing separate application seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit justifying the cause of delay. In this regard, a beneficial reference of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ragho Singh Vs. Mohan Singh and Ors., reported in 2001 (9) SCC 717 , as well as the decisions of this Court in the case of Kalpeshbhai Natwarlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in 2009 (3) GLH 372 also in the case of Dudhiben Muljibhai Patel & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in 2016 (2) GLR 1786 , may be made. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in 2009 (3) GLH 372 also in the case of Dudhiben Muljibhai Patel & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in 2016 (2) GLR 1786 , may be made. In the instant case, apart from the fact that the no separate application was made by the said Joitaram seeking condonation of delay accompanied by the affidavit, there was no justification given in the appeal memo also for filing the appeal after a gross delay of nine years. 6. It was sought to be submitted by learned advocate Mr. Masoom Shah for the said respondents that the said Joitaram was not aware about the said order passed by the Mamlatdar in 1987 dropping the proceedings under Section 84C, and as soon as he came to know about the sale made by the Shri Swaminarayan Trust to the petitioner, the Appeal was filed. The said submission cannot be accepted. Apart from the fact that necessary entries in the revenue record were already made about the said sale made by the Trust in favour of the petitioners in the year 1991, no such contention for explaining the said delay of nine years was raised in the Appeal by the said Joitaram. 7. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it appears that the said owner Joitaram himself had executed the sale deed in favour of Acharyashri Rajendraprasadji as the trustee of Shri Swaminarayan Mandir and had received the consideration. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta for the petitioners relying upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sunderlal Bhanabhai Bhagat and Others versus State of Gujarat and Others reported in 2012 (3) GLR 2081 , the person who himself had executed the sale deed, could not have challenged the sale deed, after pocketing money from the purchasers on the ground that such sale was void. 8. The Court also finds substance in the submission made by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mehta that the very fact that the Charity Commissioner had granted necessary permission to sell the land to the present petitioner, established that the subject land was purchased by the Trust and not by the trustee Rajendraprasadji, and that it was the trust property and not the individual property of its trustee. Mehta that the very fact that the Charity Commissioner had granted necessary permission to sell the land to the present petitioner, established that the subject land was purchased by the Trust and not by the trustee Rajendraprasadji, and that it was the trust property and not the individual property of its trustee. It is pertinent to note that the said order dated 01.02.1991 passed by the Charity Commissioner, has remained unchallenged and therefore has become final in view of the Section 36(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is needless to say that the proper Forum to challenge the said order would be the Forum available under the said Trust Act and not the Authority under the Tenancy Act. Hence, in the opinion of the Court, the observations made by the GRT with regard to the permission granted by the Charity Commissioner were unwarranted and without any authority of law. 9. It is sought to be submitted by learned Counsel Mr. Masoom Shah for the concerned respondents that the land was sold to the trustee of the Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Trust by the said Joitaram, who was misled by the Trustee. According to him, the said sale deed was got executed by playing fraud, and therefore, such sale was void being in contravention of the provisions contained in the Tenancy Act. The Court is unable to accept the said submission also. It is needless to say that the allegation of fraud is not only required to be pleaded but also be proved by leading cogent evidence. In the instant case, the said Joitaram after selling away the land in question to the said Trust, had not bothered for so many years, and all of a sudden after about nine years of the order passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 84C, suddenly woke up and challenged the same by alleging that it was in violation of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. Such an appeal filed by him was not only barred by limitation but also barred by laches and acquiescences. The Deputy Collector should not have entertained such appeal which was grossly time barred and that too at the instance of the appellant, who himself was the party to the said sale transaction and the beneficiary of such sale. Such action on the part of the owner was nothing but an abuse of process of law. The Deputy Collector should not have entertained such appeal which was grossly time barred and that too at the instance of the appellant, who himself was the party to the said sale transaction and the beneficiary of such sale. Such action on the part of the owner was nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is pertinent to note that the order of Mamlatdar dropping the proceedings under Section 84C was never taken in review by the higher authority. The Deputy Collector had set aside the said order in the grossly time barred Appeal filed by said Joitaram, which was not maintainable. The Revenue Tribunal has confirmed such an illegal order passed by the Deputy Collector. The observations made and the findings arrived at by the GRT being without jurisdiction and perverse, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. So far as the other petition being Special Civil Application No. 15504 of 2011 is concerned, it is required to be stated at the outset that the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the original owner Joitaram, have prayed to set aside the Paramarsh Notification dated 19.11.2008, without placing the same on record. The learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioners of the said petition has fairly stated that he does not have the copy of such Paramarsh and he is unable to produce the same. In absence of such notification on record, such a prayer for setting aside the same cannot be entertained or granted. The other prayer is for to set aside the rajachitthi granted to the subsequent purchasers (i.e. the petitioners of the other petition) however, no such rajachitthi is also produced on record. Under the circumstances, the said petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of non production of necessary documents which are sought to be challenged in the petition. 11. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 04.04.2008 passed by the GRT and the order dated 20.05.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector are quashed and set aside. The petition being Special Civil Application No. 9279 of 2008 is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the said petition. The Special Civil Application No. 15504 of 2011 is dismissed. Notice is discharged accordingly. Special Civil Application No. 9279 of 2008 allowed. Special Civil Application No. 15504 of 2011 dismissed.