Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jainu Nazarali on 6 October, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4968/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4968 of
2025
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 22886 of 2025
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 22886 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15979 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In F/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 22886 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15979 of 2019
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
JAINU NAZARALI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2
SHRENIK R JASANI(9486) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 06/10/2025
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 Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 22:55:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4968/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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 Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 22:55:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4968/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined order dated 23.01.2020 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 Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 22:55:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4968/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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.Vimal A.Purohit appearing for Mr. Shrenik R.Jasani, learned advocate appearing for the original petitioners, 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 before the learned Single Judge.
6. Taking note of the above, we do not find any error in the Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 22:55:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4968/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined decision of the learned Single judge that the proceedings initiated by the Collector after almost 31 years of the death of the original purchaser namely the father of the petitioner, cannot be said to be bonafide.
7. No error can be attached to the decision of the learned Single Judge in upturning the order passed by the Collector and Revenue Secretary, in appeal, holding that the authorities were aware of the sale deed executed in the year 1955 during the lifetime of the father of the petitioner and even after the death of the original purchaser, the suo-motu powers exercised after a period of more than 30 years, cannot be said to be justified. Taking note of the above, suffice it to record that there is nothing on record as to what had triggered the initiation of the suo moto power by the Collector in the year 2019. As per the case of the petitioner, the revenue entries were certified during the lifetime of the father of the petitioner and important is that no response to the writ petition had been filed by the State- appellants, who were respondents before the Writ Court till the disposal of the writ petition.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 22:55:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4968/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined
8. The present appeal is, thus, liable to be dismissed as misconceived. In the result, the Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Consequently, the connected Civil Application stands disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) BINA SHAH Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 22:55:15 IST 2025