IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.

4947 of 2025 In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 22883 of 2025 With F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 22883 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18165 of 2021 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 22883 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18165 of 2021 =============================================

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Versus M/S DAWOODI PULVERIZING WORKS & ORS.

=============================================

Appearance:

MS HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 MS SHWETA LODHA FOR MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 =============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 26/09/2025

ORAL ORDER

(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 15.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge with the inordinate unexplained delay of 1176 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 three 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 23.01.2020 passed by the Collector in Gharkhed Case No.4 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 1984. 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, th