R.M Chhaya, J.:— Heard Mr. HS Munshaw, learned advocate with Mr. Rajesh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shirish Gohil, learned AGP for respondents no. 2 to 5 upon advance copy.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.12.2015 passed by. the Secretary, Revenue Department (appeals) in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/GDN/23/2010.
3. It is evident from the record of this case that the subject matter of challenge in this proceedings under RTS is Entry No. 191 dated 19.04.1954 mutated in favour of the predecessor of the private respondents relating to Block No. 259/1 (New No. 271.P) for the land situated at village Bapupura, Taluka Mansa, Dist. Gandhinagar.
4. It is an admitted position that Entry No. 191 came to be mutated in the year 1954 and the said entry is certified on 19.04.1954 It is an admitted position that for the first time, the entry came to be challenged by this Court in the year 2007. Considering the order passed by the District Collector as well as the learned Secretary, which is impugned in this petition, it appears that since 1953-1954, the is of Shri Lakshmanji Khodaji is mutated for name the lands in question. The Secretary has also recorded that the document dated 18.04.1951 was brought on record and has rightly recorded the reason that the present proceedings have been initiated by the petitioners after more than 50 years from the date of its certification, i.e, 19.04.1954
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that 135(D) notice was not served and as such there is no del ay. It was further contended that the revision has been dismissed on technical ground and the issue is not examined.
6. No other or further contentions are raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
7. After considering the admitted fact that the proceedings were initiated after more than 50 years and upon going through the reasons given by the learned Secretary, this Court finds that there is no error much less any error apparent on the face of the record which warrants interference of this Court. The petition is therefore devoid of any merits and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.