Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Thro ... vs Heirs Of Deceased Samat Khoda on 3 January, 2024
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/365/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
NO. 365 of 2023
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 23470 of 2022
=================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT THRO ADDL.SECRETARY(APPEALS)
Versus
HEIRS OF DECEASED SAMAT KHODA
=================================================
Appearance:
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Respondent(s) No.
1.1,1.3.1,1.3.2,1.3.3
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Respondent(s) No.
1.1,1.3.1,1.3.2,1.3.3
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1.3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1.3.5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.2,1.3.4,2.1
=================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P.
MAYEE
Date : 03/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/365/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2024
undefined
1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and
order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, without
furnishing a reasonable explanation for the delay. We may note that
the appeal was presented in the registry on 18.07.2022 when it was
given kachcha number. For reasons best known to the appellants,
the registration of the appeal was got done on 21.03.2023. The
slackness on the part of the appellants in seeking to challenge the
order passed by the learned Single Judge is writ large on the face of
the record. Even otherwise, on a perusal of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge, it is evident that the suo motu proceedings of
revision was initiated by the Collector after a period of 21 years.
The learned Single Judge has noted that the purpose of the
Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenanacy and Settlement of Agricultural Lands
Ordinance, 1949 was to protect the interest of agriculturist or the
agricultural labourer and therefore, restrictions have been placed on
transfer of agricultural land without prior approval and such other
restrictions have been imposed. It was noted that the entries in the
revenue records being entry Nos. 184, 226 and 278 have been
cancelled by the Collector vide order dated 06.11.2006 on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/365/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2024
undefined
premise that the land purchased by the deceased, predecessor in
interest of the petitioners from one Monghiben Ukabhai vide Sale
Deed dated 15.02.1982, was contrary to Section 54 of Saurashtra
Gharkhed Tenanacy and Settlement of Agricultural Lands
Ordinance, 1949 as the land was sold to a non-agriculturist at that
point of time. It is further recorded by the learned Single Judge that
though the statute does not provide the time limit but what could be
the reasonable period for exercise of such powers has been explained
in the judgment of the Apex Court in Gohil Jesangbhai
Raysangbhai and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2014) 5
SCC 199. It was observed that suo motu exercise of powers is
beyond the period of three years, which was deemed to be a
reasonable period by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision and
more so, there was no justification for exercise of powers after a
period of 21 years. Moreover, the land in question has exchanged
many hands during the interregnum and as such the order dated
06.11.2006 passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar in cancelling the
revenue entries cannot be justified.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/365/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2024
undefined
2. For the slackness on the part of the appellants as noted herein
above and the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in the
judgment impugned that the suo motu exercise of power by the
Collector was not within a reasonable period of time, we do not find
any good ground to entertain the instant appeal. The delay
condonation application is accordingly, rejected. In the result, the
Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed, both on the ground of delay as
well as on merits. Connected applications shall stand disposed of,
accordingly.
[ Sunita Agarwal, CJ. ]
[ Aniruddha P. Mayee, J. ]
hiren
/11
