[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shailesh Bhikhubhai Parmar on 8 December, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5777/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
5777 of 2025
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 31761 of 2025
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 31761 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11556 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In F/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 31761 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11556 of 2013
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
SHAILESH BHIKHUBHAI PARMAR
=============================================
Appearance:
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR.ANSHIN H. DESAI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MR. ZALAK B
PIPALIA(6161) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 08/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Ms.Hetal Patel, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
has put in appearance on behalf of the State appellants.
2. This appeal is delayed by 921 days, inasmuch as, it was
presented on 09.10.2025 to challenge the judgment and order
dated 03.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge. The
explanation offered for the delay in filing the instant appeal, in the
application seeking condonation of delay, is that initially the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5777/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
Collector, Porbandar sought legal opinion from the Assistant
Government Pleader, Gujarat High Court on 11.07.2024, for filing a
Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, which was received on 30.08.2024. The said proposal
was sent to the Law Department of the State for approval and the
Law Department requested the Government Pleader's opinion from
the Revenue Department, which in turn was sought from the
Collector through the Collector, Porbandar.
3. On 10.12.2024, the Revenue Department was intimated that
the Law Department of the State had initially declined to challenge
the judgment. However, a revised proposal with strong reasons for
filing an LPA was sent to the Collector on 28.01.2025. The
proposal, thereafter, was presented to the State Litigation
Committee on 01.04.2025, where the decision to file an LPA was
taken. Thereafter, approval was granted by the Law Department on
24.04.2025 and instructions were given to the Collector to proceed
with filing of the LPA vide communication dated 30.04.2025 by the
Revenue Department. Steps for filing of the instant appeal has been
taken thereafter.
4. Taking note of the explanation offered in the application
seeking condonation of delay, it is more than evident that the
decision to file the Letters Patent Appeal is an after-thought.
5. Taking note of the above, we find it fit and proper to enter
into the merits of the appeal, at this stage itself.
6. Having heard Ms.Hetal Patel, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader on merits of the challenge to the order passed
by the learned Single Judge, pertinent is to note that the writ
petition was filed challenging the order dated 28.08.2009 passed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5777/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
by the Mamlatdar, order dated 23.06.2010 passed by the Deputy
Collector and the orders dated 10.05.2011 and 10.06.2013 passed
by the Collector, Porbandar and the Special Secretary, Revenue
Department (Appeals); respectively.
7. The challenge before the learned Single Judge was that the
Mutation Entry No.2813 posted in favour of the petitioner on the
basis of the registered Sale deed dated 19.05.2009, was not
certified and cancelled by the impugned order dated 28.08.2009
passed by the Mamlatdar holding the sale deed being hit by
Condition No. '8' of the Allotment order dated 30.12.1981.
8. Relevant is to note that the land in question (total area of 51
Acres) was allotted to a Co-operative society by way of an allotment
order dated 30.12.1981 for agricultural purposes. On an
application made by the Society dated 20.09.1996 for conversion of
the lands in question from new to old tenure, an order dated
09.10.1997 was passed by the Mamlatdar to convert the entire land
admeasuring 51 Acres into old tenure land for agricultural
purposes in view of the Government resolution dated 11.03.1996.
9. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that the entire land
admeasuring 51 Acres was converted into old tenure for
agricultural purposes by recovering an amount of six times of the
assessment from the allottee as per the Government resolution
dated 11.03.1996, conferring right on the allottee to transfer the
converted land for agricultural purposes. It is also noted by the
learned Single Judge that by an order dated 13.02.1998, the
Deputy Collector granted approval to the order of conversion of the
land in question into old tenure in favour of the Co-operative
society passed by the Mamlatdar. Mutation entry No.944 was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5777/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
posted with respect to the conversion of the land in question into
old tenure from new tenure in the revenue records.
10. Thereafter, a resolution dated 30.04.2009 was passed by the
Co-operative society to sell the land admeasuring 10 Acres to
adjust the loss in its income. The petitioner had purchased the land
admeasuring 5 Acres from the Society as per the registered sale
deed dated 19.05.2009. A kaccha entry No.2813 was mutated in
the revenue records on 29.05.2005 in favour of the petitioner /
purchaser but the said entry was not certified and the Mamlatdar,
by the order impugned, has cancelled the said entry on the premise
on breach of Condition No. '8' of allotment order dated 30.12.1981
passed in favour of the Society.
11. When these facts were noted by us from the judgment
impugned, on a query made by the Court as to the status of the
order of conversion of the land in question, it is admitted by the
learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State appellant that
as on date of transfer, the land in question was an old tenure land.
As all restrictions to the land in question had been removed with
the order dated 09.10.1997 passed by the Mamlatdar, which stands
a valid order as on date, the transfer cannot be said to be hit by
Condition No.'8' of the allotment order dated 30.12.1981. The
reason being that with the conversion of the land in question into
old tenure, the Condition No. '8' of the allotment order dated
30.12.1981 itself obliterated, conferring transferrable right upon
the Co-operative society for agricultural purposes.
12. There is no dispute about the fact that the transfer in favour
of the petitioner was after conversion of the land in question into
the old tenure and as per the decision of the Co-operative society in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5777/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
its resolution dated 30.04.2009. In view of the fact that the
conversion order dated 09.10.1997 passed by the Mamlatdar as
also the resolution dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Co-operative
society stands stands as on date, no exception can be taken to the
mutation entry No.2813 based on the sale deed.
13. No infirmity can be attached to the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in setting aside the orders passed by the
Revenue authority in refusing to certify the entry No.2813,
resultantly, cancelling the same on the premise of the breach of
condition of the allotment order.
14. For the aforesaid, none of the directions contained in the
judgment impugned can be said to suffer from any error of law. The
instant appeal deserves to be dismissed both on the ground of
delay as well as on merits and is dismissed, accordingly. No order
as to costs. Pending civil application stands disposed of,
accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
SAHIL S. RANGER
