Gujarat High Court
Mamlatdar And Agricultural Lands ... vs Sanjaybhai Arvindbhai Mehta on 4 September, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4613/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
4613 of 2025
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 26433 of 2025
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 26433 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10892 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 26433 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10892 of 2022
=============================================
MAMLATDAR AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS TRIBUNAL & ANR.
Versus
SANJAYBHAI ARVINDBHAI MEHTA & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR HETAL PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR KK TRIVEDI(934) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 04/09/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard Ms.Hetal Patel, learned AGP appearing for the
State appellants and Mr.K.K.Trivedi, learned advocate
appearing for the respondents.
2. This appeal is highly belated and the delay of 899 days in
filing the appeal has not been explained to the satisfaction of
the Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4613/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
3. At the outset, the learned advocate appearing for the
respondents - original petitioners has placed before us an
order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the District Collector in
granting N.A. permission (non-agricultural use permission) to
the transferee/occupants, after the judgment and order dated
01.02.2023 passed by the writ Court, which is subject matter
of challenge herein.
4. Taking note of the aforesaid facts, we have proceeded to
examine the merits of the contentions of the State appellants,
namely the Mamlatdar and ALT and the State of Gujarat
represented through the Secretary, Revenue Department. We
may record from the facts reflected before us that the present
is one of the matters where the Letters Patent Appeal has
been filed without evaluation of the merits of the case of the
State appellant, that too after a delay of 899 days without
bringing on record the fact that, in the meantime, the
Collector has already granted non-agricultural use permission
to the transferee/occupants.
5. The most startling fact of the matter relevant to be noted
by us is that a notice dated 24.05.2022 was issued by the
Mamlatdar and ALT to the original petitioners who were
transferees of the land in question vide registered Sale Deed
dated 04.12.2003. The case of the petitioners before the
learned Single Judge was that they had purchased the land in
question by way of a registered Sale Deed No.6543 dated
04.12.2003 and their names were entered in the revenue
records by Mutation Entry No.5406 dated 16.02.2004. The
petitioners, in turn, had transferred the land in question by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4613/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
way of the registered Sale Deed No.19003 dated 17.10.2011
to one Vallabhbhai Govindbhai Sutariya, in whose favour the
order of grant of N.A. permission has been passed by the
Collector on 23.11.2024 (as noted hereinbefore). The
petitioners were aggrieved by the impugned notice dated
24.05.2022 issued to them invoking Section 70A of the
Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (in short as
"the Tenancy Act"). The sole ground of challenging the notice
taken in the writ petition was the inordinate delay in invoking
the provisions of the Tenancy Act and the learned Single
Judge has quashed the notice on the ground of delay, relying
upon the decision of the Apex Court in Bhavnagar Municipal
Corporation vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. - (2004) 12
SCC 670.
6. When this appeal was argued by the learned AGP
justifying the issuance of notice dated 24.05.2022, on merits,
a query was raised by us as to how the provisions of Section
70A of the Tenancy Act, 1948 would be attracted, inasmuch
as, invocation of Section 70A would require passing of an
order declaring the transferor as person not being a
permanent tenant found in accordance with law. No such
order having been passed by the competent authority could be
placed before us to demonstrate that the transferor of the sale
deed dated 04.12.2003 was declared as not being the
permanent tenant found in accordance with law.
7. Suffice it to note that section 70A is attracted in a
situation where the occupant of the land-in-question moves an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4613/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
application for regularization of his possession/occupation, to
do away with the restrictions of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act
which would be attracted, in case, the transferor or the
original owner/occupier who was declared as a permanent
tenant has been found to be not being so, in accordance with
law. Meaning thereby that if the transfer is made by an
occupant declared as a permanent tenant of the land in
question and later an order is passed holding that the said
declaration made in his favour was not in accordance with
law, the transferee or the occupant of the land in question
would be able to seek regularization of his
occupation/ownership by moving an application before the
Collector, thereby seeking regularization of his
occupation/ownership. None of the conditions of Section 70A
of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 could
be demonstrated to have been attracted in the facts of the
present case. It is not the case of the State appellants that any
adverse order was passed against the transferor of the Sale
Deed dated 04.12.2003 or the occupants of the land in
question, namely the transferee of the Sale Deed dated
17.10.2011 moved any application before the Collector for
regularization of their occupation. It is, thus, difficult to
comprehend by us as to how the provisions of Section 70A of
the Tenancy Act could be invoked by the Mamlatdar and ALT
for issuance of the show cause notice dated 24.05.2022,
quashed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay.
8. This case, thus, presents a very sorry state of affairs on
the part of the revenue authorities in applying the provisions
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4613/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
of the Tenancy Act to initiate proceedings against the land
holders, forcing them to approach this Court for protection of
their rights. Not stopping, further the decision has been
taken to challenge the order of the writ Court dragging the
land holders in the second round of litigation. It is difficult for
us to comprehend as to how the decision could be taken to
challenge the order of writ Court in such a matter where the
State authorities are not in a position to even justify the
issuance of the notice by any of the provision of the Tenancy
Act. It seems that the decision to file the instant appeal has
been taken in a casual manner without application of mind to
the merits of the case of the State appellants. The filing of
State appeal in a casual manner without evaluation of the
merits of the case, is a matter of grave concern, inasmuch as,
it entails expenditures from the public exchequer. For any
personal opinion of any officer of the State or any casual
reference to any statutory provisions, the decision taken to file
appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, that too
with an inordinate delay of 899 days, cannot be approved of.
We may say that filing of such an appeal not only burden the
docket of this Court, but also results in the wasteful
expenditure of the State exchequer which could have been
utilized for the welfare schemes of the State.
9. We may also note that the application seeking leave to
appeal makes a casual statement about the communications
made between the officers, the Legal Department of the State
and the office of the learned Government Pleader of the High
Court. There is no explanation at all much less any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4613/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
satisfactory explanation for the inordinate unexplained delay
in filing the present appeal. Upon intervention of this Court in
such a situation where intra-court appeals were being filed
with inordinate delay in a casual manner, litigation policy
dated 29.06.2024 has been framed by the State Government.
With the promulgation of the litigation policy, the matter of
filing an intra-court appeal is required to be examined by a
Committee constituted for the purpose. There is no reference
to any such decision having been taken by the Committee in
the application seeking for condonation of delay.
10. Taking note of the above, we find it fit and proper to
place the matter before the learned Advocate General to take
corrective measures or else this Court would be forced to pass
an adverse order, in case such a situation is repeated further.
11. Subject to the above observations, the present appeal
stands dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on
merits. Consequently, connected Civil Applications stand
disposed of. Learned AGP is directed to place the matter
before the learned Advocate General for necessary actions at
his ends.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
