JUDGMENT : 1. RULE. Ms. Hetal Patel, learned AGP waives service of rule for the respondents. 2. The present Special Civil Application impugns the order dated 31.12.2024 passed below Exh.14 in Civil Misc. Application (Delay) No.10 of 2023 passed by the learned 3 rd Additional District Judge, Visavadar whereby the delay condonation application of the petitioners has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the petitioners case are that, the petitioner No.1’s grandfather was Garasdar of Mangnath, Pipli village. As per the order dated 16.10.1951 passed by the Mamlatdar, the subject land had been given to the petitioner No.1’s grandfather for cultivation as per the provisions of Barkhali (Abolition) Act, 1951. That the said land came to be included as a land of the Trust at the time of its registration. That the land was mistakenly included as Trust property. That thereafter the petitioner No.1’s Guru had filed Application No.58 of 2000 under Section 22A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to remove the subject land from the list of property of the Trust as it was included by mistake. That vide order dated 02.06.2000, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner allowed the application No.58 of 2000 by reasoned order excluding the subject land from the list of the properties of the Trust. That thereafter the original applicant has sold out the land to the petitioner No.2 herein vide registered sale deed No.294 dated 11.07.2000. However, one Bhairavgiri Guru Sohangiri challenged the order dated 02.06.2000 passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner removing the subject property from the list of the Trust by filing Revision Application No.7 of 2001 before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 70A of the Gujarat Public Trust Act. The original applicant filed objections to the said revision application. That during the pendency of the revision application, the said applicant passed away. Thereafter, the original applicant also passed away. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner vide order dated 23.02.2015 set aside the order of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 02.06.2000 and ordered the subject land to be again included in the list of the properties of the Trust. That the petitioners were not aware of the order dated 23.02.2015. Thereafter, the original applicant also passed away. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner vide order dated 23.02.2015 set aside the order of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 02.06.2000 and ordered the subject land to be again included in the list of the properties of the Trust. That the petitioners were not aware of the order dated 23.02.2015. That in the year 2021, when the petitioner No.2 approached the petitioner No.1 for entering the name of the petitioner No.2 in the revenue record and the petitioners made application for obtaining the revenue record, it was revealed that the subject land was Trust land and therefore, they came to know about the order dated 23.02.2015 in Revision Application No.7 of 2001. That thereafter the petitioners applied for the certified copy of the order dated 23.02.2015 on 05.10.2021 and the same was received on 24.02.2022. That thereafter the petitioners’ advocate received copy of the entire record from the office of the Charity Commissioner on 24.10.2021. Thereafter, the petitioners had preferred appeal under Section 72 of the Gujarat Public Trust Act along with the application for condonation of delay of 6 years, 8 months and 20 days. The appeal came to be filed on 24.04.2022 before the learned Additional District Judge, Visavdar challenging the said order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in Revision Application No.7 of 2001. That by the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge rejected the petitioners’ application for condonation of delay holding that there are no sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 6 years, 8 months and 20 days. The petitioners were also directed to deposit costs of Rs.3,000/-. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present Special Civil Application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned District Court while deciding the application for condonation of delay has erred in coming to the conclusion that sufficient reasons for condonation of delay are not enumerated. He submits that the facts as stated in the application for condonation of delay would amount to sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. He submits that the revision application filed by a third party was also entertained after condonation of delay of 510 days by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. He submits that after the applicant in the Revision Application No.7 of 2001 expired, the respondent No.1 also expired and the legal heirs of the parties were not joined. He submits that the revision application filed by a third party was also entertained after condonation of delay of 510 days by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. He submits that after the applicant in the Revision Application No.7 of 2001 expired, the respondent No.1 also expired and the legal heirs of the parties were not joined. He submits that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner had passed the order dated 23.02.2015 without verifying the status of the subject land. He submits that the proceedings were decided without hearing and joining the petitioner No.2 who had purchased the subject land. He submits that the petitioners were not heard and were not aware about the order dated 23.02.2015. He submits that the petitioners came to know about the order passed by the respondent No.1 only on 01.10.2021 when they applied for certified copy of the revenue records from the revenue authorities and that they have immediately taken steps to file appeal along with the application for condonation of delay. He submits that no prejudice will be caused if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. He submits that the petitioner No.2 is a bonafide purchaser of the subject land and had purchased the subject land by way of registered sale deed. He submits that due to rejection of the application for condonation of delay, the petitioners have not got any opportunity of personal hearing or to lead any evidence to show that they were bonafide purchasers of the subject property. He submits that the learned District Court ought to have liberally construed the sufficient cause in the present case and the delay ought to have been condoned to deliver substantial justice. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order be quashed and set aside as it destroys the rights of the petitioners. 5. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and perused the documents on record. 6. The order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Rajkot in Revision Application No. 7 of 2001 in Trust Registration No.A/1602/Junagadh has been admittedly challenged after the delay of 6 years, 8 months and 20 days. 5. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and perused the documents on record. 6. The order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Rajkot in Revision Application No. 7 of 2001 in Trust Registration No.A/1602/Junagadh has been admittedly challenged after the delay of 6 years, 8 months and 20 days. The learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order has recorded that though the petitioners claimed to have purchased the subject property on 11.07.2000, however, they have never applied to join them as parties in the Revision Application No. 7 of 2001 which was filed before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner by the original applicant who had allegedly sold the subject land and who was party to the revision application proceedings. Further, the petitioner No.1 who claims to be the heir of his Guru and the trustee of the Trust has not applied to be joined as a party after the death of his Guru. The learned District Court has further recorded a finding that though the petitioner No.1 claims to be the legal heir of his Guru, the said fact is not proved by any document to show any relationship between the petitioner No.1 and the deceased who was the original applicant in Application No.58 of 2000. The learned District Court has also recorded that though the application challenging the order dated 23.02.2015 in Revision Application No. 7 of 2001 has been challenged by the petitioner No.2 for correcting the defects in the land revenue record, however, no application has been given to join him as a party in the application with regard to the Trust. The learned District Court has thus come to the conclusion that since the petitioner No.1 who claims to be the legal heir of his Guru has not been able to prove his relationship, he has not given any details about the knowledge of the affairs of the Trust as well as details about the pending revision application proceedings when his Guru passed away, the learned District Court has held that no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioners for condoning the huge delay. 7. Even otherwise, the petitioners have not given any plausible reason for initiating mutation proceedings in respect of the Trust property of which the sale deed is purported to have been executed in the year 2000. 8. 7. Even otherwise, the petitioners have not given any plausible reason for initiating mutation proceedings in respect of the Trust property of which the sale deed is purported to have been executed in the year 2000. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay do not constitute sufficient cause. Further, the status of the petitioners has also not been proved as recorded in the impugned order. No interference is called for in the reasons recorded by the learned Additional District Judge in the impugned order. The Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.