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
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
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
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
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.
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
