ORDER : 1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 24th December, 2013 passed by Deputy Collector, order dated 28th November, 2017 passed by Collector as well as order dated 15 th/21st February, 2019 passed by Special Secretary, Revenue Department, whereby application for condonation of delay of 20 years in challenging Entry No.1852 dated 10th April, 1992 came to be rejected. 2. Facts of the case can be stated as under. 2.1 Father of the petitioner – Chanabhai Govindbhai Patel was the original owner of the land bearing Old Survey No.471 admeasuring about 40,600 Sq. Mtrs. Of land situated at Vesu, Taluka & District Surat. Father of the petitioner expired on 09th April, 1992, however before that, father of the petitioner has executed a Will dated 02nd November, 1991 in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 bequeathing the aforesaid land. Pursuant to the said Will, Entry No.1852 came to be mutated in the revenue records on 10th April, 1992. 2.2 As it appears that petitioner has filed Special Civil Suit No.47 of 2004 before Civil Court, Surat against the present respondent Nos.6 and 7 and thereafter compromise came to be arrived at between the parties in the said suit and accordingly, the said suit was disposed of on the compromise Purshish filed by the parties. 2.3 However, it appears that thereafter in the year 2011 RTS Appeal being No.218 of 2011 along with an application for condonation of delay was filed by the petitioner challenging Mutation Entry No.1852 before the Deputy Collector. However, the Deputy Collector vide order dated 24th December, 2013 rejected the application for condonation of delay. 2.4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has approached Collector, Surat by way of Revision Application No.364 of 2015. However, Collector vide order dated 28th November, 2017 rejected the application by confirming order passed by the Deputy Collector. 2.5 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, petitioner has approached Special Secretary, Revenue Department by way of Revision Application No.6 of 2018 which Revision also dismissed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department vide order dated 15th/21st February,2019. 3. However, Collector vide order dated 28th November, 2017 rejected the application by confirming order passed by the Deputy Collector. 2.5 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, petitioner has approached Special Secretary, Revenue Department by way of Revision Application No.6 of 2018 which Revision also dismissed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department vide order dated 15th/21st February,2019. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the aforesaid relief. 4. I have heard learned advocate Mr.Hitesh Acharya for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Rohan Shah for respondent No.1 – State and learned advocate Mr.Amit Thakkar with learned advocate Mr.Hiren Pandya for respondent No.6. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Acharya for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, has made following submissions. 5.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Entry No.1852 dated 10th April, 1992 came to be posted immediately on the next date after expiry of father of the petitioner i.e. on 09th April, 1992. Learned advocate further submitted that thereby posting of the Entry on the immediate next date is without following due procedure of law and without giving sufficient notice to the concerned parties. Learned advocate for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that Entry No.1852 is thereby being posted in violation of the provisions of the Act and thus deserves to be cancelled. 5.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that as such respondent No.7 is not an agriculturist, thus his name should not be continued and thereby the Entry is required to be cancelled. 5.3 By making above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has requested this Court to allow the petition as prayed for. 6. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent No.6, while opposing the petition, has made following submissions. 6.1 Learned advocate for respondent No.6 vehemently submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner has suppressed series of facts with a view to gain undue sympathy of the Court and therefore, this Court, while exercising prerogative powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not entertain the petition on the ground of suppression. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner has suppressed series of facts with a view to gain undue sympathy of the Court and therefore, this Court, while exercising prerogative powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not entertain the petition on the ground of suppression. 6.2 Learned advocate for the respondent No.6, so as to substantiate his contention and to show that series of suppression is made, contended that one suit being Special Civil Suit No.47 of 2004 before the Civil Court, Surat was filed by mother of the petitioner wherein petitioner was also joined as defendant in the proceedings. Learned advocate further submitted that in the said suit, compromise came to be entered into between the parties of the said suit, and the present petitioner being defendant in the said suit, have acknowledged and forgo their rights in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 by virtue of the Will of father of the petitioner. Learned advocate for respondent No.6 submitted that accordingly the Civil Court has disposed of the said suit on the basis of the compromise Purshish filed by all the parties. The said fact of filing of the suit and culmination of the same into compromise and having foregone their rights in favour of present respondent Nos.6 and 7, intentionally not brought in the memo of petition and thus the same can be said to be serious suppression of material facts. 6.3 Learned advocate for respondent No.6 further pointed out that another serious suppression of fact is that for the very Entry No.1852, in the year 2012, Collector, Surat, has initiated suo motu Revision at the instance of the mother of the petitioner in the year 2005 wherein name of respondent No.6 was ordered to be mutated and the Entry No.1852 was modified to that extent. As against that, petitioner has approached Special Secretary, Revenue Department by way of Revision in the year 2012. However, the said Revision was rejected by order dated 02nd April, 2016. Admittedly, the said order was never challenged further and has attained its finality. Learned advocate submitted that the very revenue proceedings are also suppressed in the present petition. As against that, petitioner has approached Special Secretary, Revenue Department by way of Revision in the year 2012. However, the said Revision was rejected by order dated 02nd April, 2016. Admittedly, the said order was never challenged further and has attained its finality. Learned advocate submitted that the very revenue proceedings are also suppressed in the present petition. 6.4 Learned advocate further submitted that once the parties have entered into settlement and having invited the consent order by the competent Civil Court, the present petition being party to the said consent order, has got no locus to challenge the Entry proceedings after a period of 20 years. 6.5 Learned advocate further submitted that as such the land in question was already converted into N.A. use and in turn residential towers have been constructed and various people are residing over there. Thus, because of efflux of time, equities of land has been changed and thereby, at this stage, if the present petition is entertained, there would be a situation where third parties who are now in possession and having interest in the properties would be prejudiced that too without joining them in the proceedings. 6.6 Learned advocate for the respondent No.6 further submitted that the orders passed by the authorities in refusing to condone the delay is perfectly justified as the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay, rather pleaded ignorance which, in fact, cannot be the case as the petitioner was well aware with regard to the mutation of Entry No.1852 at least from the year 2004 at the time when the suit was filed. 6.7 By making above submissions, learned advocate for respondent No.6 has requested this Court to dismiss the present petition. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Rohan Shah, while supporting the impugned orders, has adopted all the contentions raised by learned advocate Mr.Amit Thakkar for respondent No.6 and requested this Court to dismiss the petition. 8. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and have gone through the material produced on record in detail. No other and/or further submissions have been canvassed by learned advocates for the respective parties except what are stated hereinabove. 9. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the materials on record, following facts emerge from the record. No other and/or further submissions have been canvassed by learned advocates for the respective parties except what are stated hereinabove. 9. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the materials on record, following facts emerge from the record. (i) Respondent Nos.6 and 7 have got the land in question pursuant to the Will executed by father of the petitioner and Entry No.1852 was mutated on 10th April, 1992; (ii) The said Will was subjected to challenge by mother of the petitioner by way of Special Civil Suit No.47 of 2004 before the Civil Court, Surat wherein the present petitioner was made defendant in the said proceedings. The said civil suit thereafter settled by all the parties relinquishing and/or foregoing their rights in favour of respondent No.6. Meaning thereby, the present petitioner being defendant in the said suit and their mother being plaintiff of the suit, have accepted the Will which was executed in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 and accordingly, they have forego their challenge; (iii) Collector, Surat, at the instance of mother of the petitioner, has initiated suo motu proceedings against certification of Entry No.1852 in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7, however the Collector, Surat vide order dated 20th August, 2005 modified the certification of Entry No.1852 by directing mutation of name of respondent No.6 only; (iv) Against the said order, petitioner has approached Special Secretary, Revenue Department by way of Revision Application No.16 of 2023, i.e. after almost a period of seven years. The Special Secretary, Revenue Department vide order dated 02nd April, 2016 rejected the said Revision and confirmed the order passed by the Collector. Pertinently, the said order of the Special Secretary, Revenue Department was not subjected to any further challenged and thereby the said order could be said to have attained its finality; (v) The petitioner, simultaneously, has preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector in her individual capacity along with an application for condonation of delay challenging Entry No.1852 dated 10th April, 1992 which was numbered as Appeal No.218 of 2011. The Deputy Collector, in turn, pleased to reject the said appeal on the ground of delay of almost 20 years. The Deputy Collector, in turn, pleased to reject the said appeal on the ground of delay of almost 20 years. As against that, the petitioner has approached the Collector as well as Special Secretary, Revenue Department and before all the authorities, petitioner remained unsuccessful; (vi) At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that the said land in question was converted into N.A. use by the competent authority vide order dated 29th August, 2011. Even that order was also challenged by the petitioner before Special Secretary, Revenue Department and the Special Secretary, Revenue Department dismissed the said Revision and confirmed the N.A. order and the same has also attained its finality; (vii) Very importantly to be noted, the said land thereafter came to be developed by constructing ten multi-storied building and subsequently residential towers are sold to third parties and equities have already been created in favour of those residents. 10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the firm opinion that the present petitioner has suppressed material facts with a view to gain sympathy. I say so because in the entire pleadings of the petition, there is not a whisper about civil suit that was compromised by the parties, revenue proceedings which was initiated suo motu by the Collector and has confirmed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department. Even the N.A. order which was challenged and Special Secretary, Revenue Department dismissed the plea of the petitioner, was also suppressed. It was also suppressed that on the land in question there are already multi-storied buildings exist and residents are residing in the said buildings and thereby equities have been changed. 11. Considering the suppression, time-and-again the Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of decisions stated that parties who approached the court of law should approach with clean hands and with full disclosure of facts. 12. While seeking any relief by invoking prerogative jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, it is the duty of the litigant to become more vigilant and be more truthful. However, in the facts of the present case, serious suppression of facts as stated hereinabove came to be noted by this Court and thereby on this ground, the present petition does not require any interference. 13. However, in the facts of the present case, serious suppression of facts as stated hereinabove came to be noted by this Court and thereby on this ground, the present petition does not require any interference. 13. When serious suppression is noticed and established, normally this Court would not further delve into merits. However, if the merit is considered, in that event also, the present petitioner who has settled the civil dispute with respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the civil court, cannot have any locus to challenge the revenue entry by way of revenue proceedings. Once before the civil court there is a settlement and waiver of right qua particular property, there cannot be any other way of deviating from the said compromise that too by invoking provisions of the revenue proceedings. Aspect of 20 years of delay which all throughout all the authorities have considered not satisfactorily explained, in my view, cannot be said to have committed any fault as even from the pleadings of the petition, the petitioner has not explained the delay of 20 years, rather pleaded only ignorance which in fact is not correct. Cumulatively, in my considered opinion, petitioner has clearly abused the process of law and thereby the petitioner cannot be allowed to go scot-free with only dismissal of the petition. Accordingly, this Court deems it proper to impose cost of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner, to be deposited with Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association within a period of 10 days and shall produce copy thereof on the record of this petition.