Surat Court Condones 387-Day Delay in Rundh Land Case Against Gajera Brothers

Surat | Gujarat — In a significant development in the controversial Rundh village land dispute, a Surat court has allowed a revision petition to proceed despite a 387-day delay, clearing the way for further legal scrutiny into allegations involving members of the Gajera family and government officials.

However, while granting relief to the complainant, the court imposed a ₹5,000 penalty and directed that the amount be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority.

The case was filed by Tejash Rameshbhai Patel, a resident of Rundh village in Surat, who had earlier approached the court seeking a criminal inquiry and registration of a case against several individuals. Those named in the complaint include Chunilal Haribhai Gajera, Vasant Hari Gajera, Dhaval Rameshchandra Mavani of the District Land Records (DLR) office, Naresh Maganlal Togadia from the District Land Investigation Office, and Dhansukhbhai Jagabhai of Rundh village.

Allegations of Land Division Without Notice

In his complaint, Patel alleged that government officials and members of the Gajera family conspired to divide agricultural land in Rundh village without issuing any prior notice to the farmer concerned, thereby causing financial loss and benefiting certain private parties.

The petition claimed that the division of the land was carried out in a fraudulent manner to favour members of the Gajera family, raising serious questions about the conduct of officials responsible for land administration.

However, the civil court had earlier dismissed the complaint, stating that the dispute primarily related to land ownership rights and division of property, which falls within the civil domain rather than criminal proceedings.

Delay in Filing Revision Petition

Following the dismissal of his complaint, Tejash Patel decided to challenge the order by filing a revision petition. However, the petition was filed 387 days after the deadline, prompting the need for a separate application seeking condonation of the delay.

In his plea before the court, Patel explained that the delay occurred because he faced significant difficulty in obtaining certified copies of documents related to the land claim cases.

He also informed the court that he had been unable to attend to legal proceedings for a considerable period due to his sister suffering from a serious lung disease, which required his attention and care.

Government Opposes Plea

The government lawyer strongly opposed the application, arguing that a delay of 387 days was excessive and that the reasons cited by the complainant were not convincing enough to justify such a long lapse.

“The delay is unusually long and the grounds mentioned are insufficient,” the government counsel reportedly argued during the hearing.

Court Grants Relief with Penalty

After hearing arguments from both sides, the court decided to condone the delay in the interest of justice, allowing the revision petition to be heard.

However, the court made it clear that such delays cannot be taken lightly and therefore imposed a ₹5,000 fine on the complainant.

The amount must be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, the court ordered.

Legal experts say the ruling ensures that procedural delays do not completely shut the door on legal remedies, while also sending a message that litigants must act diligently.