ORDER : VINEET KOTHARI, J. 1. This Intra Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 16.09.2016 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Civil Application No. 11016 of 2012 filed by the Appellant – Sabhaiben Polabhai Rabari wife of late Shri Polabhai Mevrabhai Rabari claiming that the grant of land in question of Survey No. 342 paiki admeasuring 3 Acres and 6 Gunthas situated in village Bhatvadiya in the year 1968 in favour of her father-in-law Mevrabhai Pethabhai Rabari has been wrongly taken back and land vested in the State Government on the ground of non-cultivation of the land in question, in view of provisions of Bombay / Gujarat Land Revenue Code. 2. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition finding that the learned Deputy Collector vide order dated 05.04.1982 had passed the order on the ground that the original land holder, namely, Mevrabhai Pethabhai Rabari had expired, without any information about his legal heirs and as per the Report of the TalaticumMantri (Circle Officer), the land in question was not being cultivated by anybody, and therefore, the land was directed to be resumed and vested in the State Government in view of the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code as applicable to the State of Gujarat also. The said order was affirmed by the learned District Collector by dismissal of appeal on the ground that the Appeal against the said Order dated 05.04.1982 was filed by the Appellant – Sabhaiben Polabhai Rabari after 25 years in the year 2007 and no sufficient explanation was given for such a huge delay and though a delay condonation application was filed before him on the ground that on account of ignorance of law and she belonging to the poor and illiterate class of people, could not approach the learned Collector earlier. The further Revision Petition filed before the Special Secretary against the said order of District Collector dated 02.02.2008 also came to be dismissed by the learned Special Secretary vide order dated 11.05.2012. 3. The Writ Petition filed in 2016 before the learned Single Judge also was dismissed with the following observations: “5. The Court does not find any substance in any of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. The Writ Petition filed in 2016 before the learned Single Judge also was dismissed with the following observations: “5. The Court does not find any substance in any of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the Deputy Collector had initiated the inquiry, in which the TalaticumMantri had reported that the family members of Mevrabhai Pethabhai Rabari, after his death had shifted to the Village Bhogat and the land had remained uncultivated for many years. The said fact was fortified by the petitioner herself in the memo of the application filed by her before the Collector to the effect that she had shifted to the other Village, which was 8 to 10 kms away from the Village Bhatvadiya. The petitioner has also not produced any document to show that allottee after the death of Mevrabhai Pethabhai Rabari, his son Polabhia Mevrabhai Rabari was cultivating the land and after the death of Polabhai Mevrabhai Rabari, the petitioner was cultivating the land. It is pertinent to note that after the order passed by the Deputy Collector, the land had already vested in the Government vide the Entry No.492 dated 7.3.1984, however, the said entry has also remained unchallenged. If the petitioner was in fact cultivating the land in question, she would have come to know about the said entry and challenged the said entry and also the order of the Deputy Collector. She has also not produced any material whatsoever to show that she had inherited the said land from the original allottee nor has produced any material to show that she had ever cultivated the land, while staying at Village Bhogat. The order of Deputy Collector was challenged by her about 25 years after its passing before the Collector. Under the circumstances, the Court does not find any perversity or infirmity in the orders passed by the Deputy Collector or by the Collector, not condoning the delay. 6. The judgements cited by Mr.Majmudar have no application to the facts of this case. There being gross delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the order of Deputy Collector, and the petitioner having failed to produce any document to show her right or interest in the land in question, much less to show that she had ever cultivated the land in question, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. 7. 7. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any merit in the present petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. ” 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr.S.P.Majmudar, in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, has produced the Death Certificate of Polabhai Mevrabhai Rabari, husband of the present Appellant Sabhaiben Polabhai Rabari, who as per the said Certificate dated 24.04.2020 issued by the Local Panchayat, the said Polabhai Rabari has died on 05.12.1997. For the original land holder Rabari Mevrabhai Pethabhai, fatherinlaw of the present Appellant – Sabhaiben, a Certificate in Form No.10 has been issued by the said TalatiCumMantri, on 10.03.2021 that no such record was maintained during the relevant period of 1985 and therefore the death of the said Rabari Mevrabahi Pethabhai with the exact date cannot be certified. However, at the bottom of the said Form No.10, an unsigned averment is recorded, namely, that on the basis of information given by the applicant, the date of death is said to be 06.08.1985 of the said Rabari Mevrabhai Pethabhai. 5. The learned Counsel Mr.Majmudar has urged before us that the original order passed by the Deputy Collector on 05.04.1982 was against the dead person and there was sufficient reason for condonation of delay of 25 years when the Appellant was belonging to poor, illiterate class of people. He has also referred to the Panchnama drawn in pursuance of directions issued by the learned Single Judge, where on verification, the Appellant was found to be present on the land in question. Therefore, he has submitted that the vesting of the land in the State Government and the consequential Revenue Entry made therein vide Entry No. 492 dated 07.03.1984 deserves to be cancelled. 6. Per Contra, the learned Counsel for the Government Mr.Antani has supported the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the case suffers from many pitfalls and lacunae and there is no evidence whatsoever produced on record by the Appellant for the fact of cultivation by her as admittedly they were living in a different village Bhogat which was about 8 to 10 kilometers away from the village Bhatvadiya and there was no question of cultivation of land by her or by her husband. On the basis of Report of TalaticumMantri, it was verified by him that there was no cultivation on the land in question, and therefore, according to the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, the land was rightly resumed and vested back in the State Government and Revenue Entry No. 492 dated 07.03.1984 made in Record has ever since remained unchallenged by the Appellant or anybody. He has further submitted that the Appellant has not explained any cogent reasons for approaching the learned Collector by way of an Appeal against the order dated 05.04.1982 after 25 years in the year 2007 and the alleged vague ground of poverty and illiteracy cannot be considered as sufficient for condoning the huge delay of 25 years, and therefore, the authorities below i.e. the learned Collector as well as the Special Secretary were justified in dismissing the Appeal and Revision Petition filed by the Appellant – Sabhaiben. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record with the assistance of the learned Counsels, we are satisfied that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. The continuing of cultivation is the basic condition for the grant in question which was given in the year 1968 in favour of the fatherinlaw of the present Appellant – Sabhaiben. The husband of the Petitioner – Appellant is said to have died in the year 1997. No effort was made by the original land holder who was apparently alive in the year 1982 as the approximate date of death is given in the Certificate Form No. 10 now produced before us also is in the year 1985. His son Polabhai Mevrabhai Rabari who expired in the year 1997 also did not take any steps for either cultivating the land in question or approaching the learned Collector against the Order dated 05.04.1982 for restoring the land in question in his name being the son and legal heir of the original land holder Rabari Mevrabhai Pethabhai. After the death of the husband Polabhai Mevrabhai Rabari also, a period of approximately 10 years expired before the Appellant approached the learned Collector by way of an Appeal in the year 2007. 8. A huge period of 25 years cannot be explained by the lame excuse of poverty and illiteracy. After the death of the husband Polabhai Mevrabhai Rabari also, a period of approximately 10 years expired before the Appellant approached the learned Collector by way of an Appeal in the year 2007. 8. A huge period of 25 years cannot be explained by the lame excuse of poverty and illiteracy. Ultimately, in the year 2007 also, only with the help of some Advocate, who is not even named in the said undated Application filed before the learned Collector, the Appellant approached the learned Collector by way of an Appeal. Therefore, it cannot be said that the husband of the Appellant or the Appellant herself were unaware for all these period of 25 years of their alleged rights and to approach some authority for redressal of their grievance. A complete silence for 25 years where the alternative source of livelihood at the different place village Bhogat, the Appellant and her husband could also have settled elsewhere and admittedly when they were living 8 to 10 kms away from the village Bhatvadiya where the land in question being Survey No. 342 existed, it cannot be said that they were continuously cultivating the land in question. It cannot be reasonably believed that they were cultivating the land in question. 9. The land in question, therefore, was rightly vested in the State by the Order dated 05.04.1982 as found by the Government Officials reports to be not cultivated for considerable period. The impugned order dated 05.04.1982 cannot be said to have been passed against the dead person. The said person Mr.Mevrabhai Pethabhai Rabari apparently was alive in the year 1982 and even assuming that he was no longer surviving in the year 1982, the order in question cannot be said to be void or non est, as was sought to be canvassed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant merely because it was passed in the name of a dead person. 10. The proceedings in question for vesting the land in question with the State have to be naturally treated as in Re: Rabari Mevrabhai Pethabhai for the particular land. It is on the basis of the Reports of the TalaticumMantri, who is supposed to have physically verified the land in question and found it to be uncultivated for quite some time and gathering the local information which formed the basis of his report only, the Dy. It is on the basis of the Reports of the TalaticumMantri, who is supposed to have physically verified the land in question and found it to be uncultivated for quite some time and gathering the local information which formed the basis of his report only, the Dy. Collector passed the impugned order dated 05.04.1982. On the basis of the said order, the Revenue Entries were also changed and land was recorded in the name of Government vide Entry No. 492 dated 07.03.1984. Even these entries remained unchallenged. Even when the Appellant assisted by an Advocate approached the learned Collector in the year 2007 and surprisingly even now, when the litigation is pending in this Court since 2012 with the filing of Special Civil Application No. 11016 of 2012, no such effort was made by the Appellant to assail such Revenue Entry. 11. The case therefore does not call for any sympathetic view and the learned Single Judge as well as the three authorities below have rightly recorded the findings that the land in question was not being cultivated and was therefore liable to be resumed and vested in the State Government. The present Appeal, therefore, has no merits and is liable to be dismissed. The same is accordingly, dismissed. 12. Before we part, we may only observe that the present Appellant – Sabhaiben wife of Polabhai Mevrabhai Rabari will be free to approach the competent authority for afresh grant of land and if the relevant Rules and laws so permit, the land may be regranted for cultivation. Further subject to the condition that there is no Town Planning Scheme which reserved the land in question for some other purpose than the Competent Authority may consider the application of the Appellant – Petitioner afresh for grant of land for cultivation in accordance with law after verifying that the Appellant – Petitioner is not in possession of any other agricultural land in the village Bhogat where she is presently residing and was residing with her husband or any other nearby place. With these observations, the Appeal is disposed of. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. In view of disposal of the main Appeal, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of, accordingly.