Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ, MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY, J
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
KAMIL HASIM MERCHANT THROUGH POA HASIM NAZARALI MERCHANT & ORS. – Respondent
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4440 of 2025 | F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 25399 of 2025 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17982 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MS. HETAL PATEL, AGP
For the Respondents: MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710)
An appeal filed with substantial delay requires adequate justification; actions against transactions long settled likely deemed non-bonafide.
Headnote:(A) Saurastra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 - Delay in filing appeal - An appeal filed to challenge the judgment of a single judge cannot be entertained after an unexplained delay of 1211 days. Adequate grounds must be established to support condonation of delay. (Paras 1 and 6)
(B) Tenancy Law - Rights of Parties - A transaction after 31 years, related to the sale of agricultural land, regarded as non-bonafide if initiated without substantial grounds against the original purchaser. The authorities' actions were found unjustified in light of no mistake by the original purchaser shown post their death. (Paras 3, 6, and 7)
Facts of the case:
The appeal challenged a judgment from 15.02.2022 regarding the validity of orders from the Collector and Revenue Secretary related to agricultural land transactions from 1955, which were declared invalid after significant delay. The original purchaser's lineage had not raised issues during their life.
Findings of Court:
The state failed to provide necessary responses and justifications for actions taken decades later; thus the judgment was upheld. The appeal was dismissed both on the grounds of procedural delay and substance.
Issues: The primary concern was whether the delay in addressing the earlier decisions and the lack of substantiated grounds for actions taken after 31 years warranted a challenge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that without a legitimate basis, actions taken years after the fact were seen as lacking bona fides, and an appeal filed after substantial delay typically risks dismissal.
Result: The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal was misconceived due to significant delays. (Para 1) |
| 2. delays in responding to previous petitions hinder the state's argument. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments about evidence need prior foundation and response. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. the exercised authority after 31 years shows lack of justification. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. the appeal is dismissed. (Para 8) |
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. This is a wholly misconceived appeal filed on behalf of the State, challenging the judgment and order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge with the inordinate unexplained delay of 1211 days. The averments in the delay condonation application are not sufficient to condone the delay and the assertions therein that the delay occurred in preferring the instant Letters Patent Appeal is bonafide and due to administrative reasons, are not found convincing.
2. However, considering the merits of the case of the State- appellants, pertinent as to note that four writ petitions were filed in the year 2021 challenging the order dated 15.10.2021 passed by the Revenue Secretary as also the order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the Collector, under The Saurastra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance , 1949 (for short “Saurastra Gharkhed Ordinance, 1949”) which were decided vide common judgment and order dated 15.03.2022 by the learned Single Judge. On a query made by this Court as to whether the State had filed any response before the Writ Court, it was submitted by the learned AGP that no reply affidavit had been filed by the State-appellants before the writ court. The fact remains that all the assertions made in the present appeal to challenge the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge are taken for the first time, without any foundation thereto.
3. Further, considering the case of the petitioners challenging the order dated 24.01.2020 passed by the Collector in Gharkhed Case No.7 of 2019 registered in the suo moto exercise of power and the order dated 15.10.2021 passed by the Revenue Secretary in Appeal, it was noted by the learned Single Judge that the purchase in question was of the year 1955 when the revenue entries in respect of the sale/purchase was made in favour of the father of the original petitioner and that the said revenue entries were certified in the year 1973. The father of the petitioner, as per case of the petitioner had died on 25.04.1986, but nothing had been done during the life time of the original purchaser. For the first time, a show cause notice dated 19.07.2019 was issued by the Collector, Porbandar on the premise of the alleged breach of Section 54, Saurastra Gharkhed Ordinance, 1949 against the petitioners. Gharkhed Case No.11 of 2019 and others was then registered and the transaction made in favour of the father of the petitioner of the year 1955 was held to be, in the breach of Section 54 of the Saurastra Gharkhed Ordinance, 1949, on the premise that the purchaser was a non-agriculturist, declaring the transfer ineffective, while imposing penalty upon the petitioner and summary eviction from the land in question was ordered.
4. In the present appeal, on the query made by this Court as to what was the material before the Collector to hold that the purchaser was a non-agriculturist, the reference has been made to the averments of the sale deed to submit that the sale was for a non- agricultural purposes. However, apart from the averments from the sale deed, there is nothing on record nor there is any assertion to the effect that the sale was made without seeking permission of the competent authority and, more so, there is nothing on record that the purchaser himself was a non-agriculturist.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Virat Popat appearing for the original petitioner, in rebuttal, had relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Hussainbhai Satarbhai Meman reported in 2024(0) AIJEL-HC-
249387 be
