Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Gadhvi Mahadan Shivdan on 9 March, 2026
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5222/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5222 of
2025
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL/30159/2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/178/2018
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 30159 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 178 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In F/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 30159 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 178 of 2018
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
GADHVI MAHADAN SHIVDAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR. DIVYANG A RAMANI(7180) for the Respondent(s) No.
2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 09/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY):-
1. The additional affidavit on behalf of the appellant no.4 in support of the delay condonation application, filed today in the Court, is taken on record. This intra-court appeal is Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 20:56:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5222/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026 undefined delayed by 793 days for which no proper explanation was offered in the delay condonation application filed alongwith an affidavit dated 02.09.2025. However, on the request made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the applicants - State, time for filing better affidavit has been granted.
2. In the affidavit filed today in support of the delay condonation application, it is stated that the oral order dated 23.06.2023 came to be uploaded on the web-site of the Gujarat High Court on 25.10.2023 and the final writ came to be dispatched by the Registry on 30.11.2023, which was received in the deponent namely Mamlatdar, Radhanpur on 08.12.2023. In the meantime, the Revenue Department issued instructions to its subordinate officers for prompt action to be taken in filing of the intra-court appeals vide communication dated 14.12.2023. Consequently, the Mamlatdar, Radhanpur addressed a communication dated 15.01.2024 to the Collector, Patan requesting for the proposal to file intra-court appeal in respect of the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the writ court. A formal communication dated 02.02.2024 was made to the office of the learned Government Pleader Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 20:56:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5222/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026 undefined requesting for an opinion on filing of intra-court appeal. The opinion of the concerned Assistant Government Pleader was received on 26.02.2024 and thereafter, the same was communicated to the Collector on 29.03.2024. The Collector after scrutiny of the records submitted the proposal to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department for filing of the Letters Patent Appeal.
3. The Revenue Department by way of the letter dated 17.08.2024 called for certain documents, as well as the reasons and explanation for the delay in filing of the appeal.
The office of the Collector forwarded answer to the queries vide communication dated 22.08.2024 raised by the Revenue Department to the Mamlatdar, Radhanpur to submit his response who, in turn, sent a reply to the office of the Collector on 23.08.2024. However, the response of the Mamlatdar did not provide answer to the queries made by the Revenue Department regarding delay and hence, another communication was addressed to the Assistant Collector to resolve the same.
4. Ultimately, the Mamlatdar vide letter dated 28.10.2024 Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 20:56:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5222/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026 undefined set out the reasons for the delay in the process of filing appeal and the same was communicated to the Collector. The Revenue Department again vide communication dated 17.12.2024 raised additional queries as to whether the State authorities had filed an affidavit-in-reply in the original writ petition and the contents thereof. On receipt of the response to the queries of the Revenue Department, instructions were given to the Collector in the matter of filing appeal after taking necessary approval from the Legal Department, which was received on 30.06.2025. On receipt of the letter of approval dated 03.07.2025 of the Revenue Department in the office of the learned Government Pleader, the process of drafting and filing the appeal has been undertaken.
5. We find that in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Mamlatdar, the delay in filing the appeal after receipt of the order of the writ court in the office of the Mamlatdar, Radhanpur on 08.12.2023, has not been explained to the satisfaction of the Court, inasmuch as, there are huge gaps of approximately 30 days in various communications inter-se between the officers in the matter of filing appeal. Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 20:56:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5222/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026 undefined
6. We, therefore, do not find it fit to condone the delay of 793 days in filing this intra-court appeal on behalf of the State appellants. However, on the request made by Mr. Sanjay Udhwani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State appellants, we have proceeded to examine the case of the State on merits as well.
ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL:-
7. Coming on the merits of the case of the State appellants, pertinent is to the record that the challenge before the learned Single Judge was to the order dated 17.06.2017 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department namely respondent no.1 in the revision application No.JMN/ PATAN/ 20/2013. The categorical case of the petitioner before the writ court was that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the land-in-question from the respondent no.5 therein, who was the original owner of the same.
8. As per the revenue records, the land bearing survey no.140 paiki 1 situated in the sim of mouje Panvi, Taluka Radhanpur, admeasuring 3 guntha was declared as 'surplus Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 20:56:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5222/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026 undefined land' under Section-21 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, as on 04.03.1977. The mutation entry no.132 to the said effect had been made in the record of rights. After transfer of the land-in-question, in accordance with the provisions of Section-30 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 on various terms and conditions mentioned in the order passed by the competent authority, which is recorded in the record of rights vide mutation entry no.179 dated 18.04.1982, the respondent no.5 became the legal owner of the land-in-question, which remained in his continuous use and occupation for a period of 15 years. There is no report of violation of any of the terms and conditions of the transfer by respondent no.5 herein.
9. On 14.05.1997, the owner namely respondent no.5 filed an application for conversion of the land-in-question from new tenure to old tenure for agricultural purpose which came to be allowed by respondent no.4 namely, the Mamlatdar, Radhanpur vide order dated 23.06.1997 on various terms and conditions mentioned therein, including payment of premium for such conversion. The effect of the order of conversion dated 23.06.1997 was entered in the record of rights vide Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 20:56:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5222/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026 undefined mutation entry no.344 dated 25.06.1997. After the land-in-
question was converted into old tenure for agricultural purposes, it was purchased by the petitioner herein vide registered sale-deed dated 08.07.1997 from the respondent no.5. The entry of the sale-deed was also made in the record of rights vide mutation entry no.345 dated 09.07.1997, and was approved by the competent authority on 05.09.1997. A copy of the registered sale-deed dated 08.07.1997 has been appended with the writ petition.
10. After a period of almost one year of the sale, a show- cause notice dated 13.08.1998 was issued to the respondent no.5, the seller, seeking for recall/ review of the order dated 23.06.1997 passed by the Mamlatdar, Radhanpur, for converting the land-in-question from new tenure to old tenure. The said show-cause notice came to be adjudicated vide order dated 02.11.1998 passed by the respondent no.3 namely the Deputy Collector, Radhanpur, which was further subjected to appeal before the Collector, who vide order dated 29.08.2013 has returned the appeal on the ground that the same was not maintainable and that the petitioner was required to file revision application before the Special Secretary, Revenue Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 20:56:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5222/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026 undefined Department.
11. The revision application came to be filed thereafter, which was rejected vide order dated 17.06.2017, subject matter of challenge before the writ court.
12. The learned Single Judge, in the judgment impugned, categorically records that the land-in-question was transferred in the name of respondent no.5 in accordance with the provisions of Section-30 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 as a new tenure with certain terms and conditions, where after the respondent no.5 continued to occupy and use the same, which fact remained undisputed. The application seeking for conversion of the land-in-question from new tenure to old tenure filed by the respondent no.5 was considered in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 11.03.1996 as well as the Government Resolution dated 21.08.1996, while granting permission by the Mamlatdar, Radhanpur vide order dated 23.06.1997.
13. The suo motu exercise proceedings carried out by the Deputy Collector, Radhanpur was initiated pursuant to a new Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 20:56:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5222/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026 undefined Government Resolution dated 06.03.1998, which came into operation later in point of time, whereas the order dated 23.06.1997 was passed by the Mamlatdar considering the Government Resolution dated 11.03.1996 prevailing at the relevant point of time.
14. It is also noted by the learned Single Judge that the Government Resolution dated 06.03.1998 pursuant to which the suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Collector, has further been cancelled and as on the date of the decision of writ court, the Government Resolution dated 10.05.2001 introduced later was holding the field.
15. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, in support of its case, had argued before the writ court that the Mamlatdar had committed serious error in implementation of the Government Resolution dated 11.03.1996 and thereby, the orders passed by the Deputy Collector as well as the Special Secretary cannot be interfered with.
16. Taking note of this rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ court categorically records Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 20:56:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5222/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026 undefined that the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader with regard to the jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar, Radhanpur to decide the matter pertaining to the conversion of land from new tenure to old tenure in connection with vide Government Resolution dated 11.03.1996, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, vide Government Resolution dated 21.08.1996, the power to convert the land from new tenure to old tenure in connection with the land allotted under the provisions of the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, had been specifically conferred upon the Mamlatdar.
17. Mr. Sanjay Udhwani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State appellants challenging the judgment impugned, would, however, submit that the Government Resolution dated 11.03.1996 had conferred power upon the Mamlatdar for conversion of certain lands falling under certain statutory enactments which did not include the lands allotted under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960. The submission is that this fact specifically brought before the learned Single Judge, has been ignored and, as such, the decision of the writ court, cannot be sustained. The Deputy Collector cannot be said to have erred Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 20:56:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5222/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026 undefined in exercising suo motu power to correct the mistake committed by the Mamlatdar by invoking the Government Resolution dated 11.03.1996 which was not applicable with respect to the land-in-question, allotted under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960.
18. Inviting attention of the Court to Page-'34' of the paper- book, the Government Resolution dated 11.03.1996, it is sought to be submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the categories of lands indicated therein do not include the lands allotted under the Ceiling Act. A bare reading of the said Government Resolution indicates that the same was pertaining to the subject "for conversion of new and impartible tenure land or new tenure land, to old tenure land". The conditions for conversion as stated therein records that such conversion would be made on payment of premium. The Government Resolution dated 11.03.1996 records different nature of rights conferred upon the landholders by the State Government, by allotment/ grant of new tenure land or new and impartible tenure land, and had been issued to address the grievances of the land owners with a view to make a policy for conversion, subject to the conditions Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 20:56:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5222/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026 undefined mentioned therein.
19. There is no dispute about the fact that the land-in- question declared as 'surplus land' under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 has been allotted thereafter. The transfer in favour of the respondent no.5 had been undertaken by complying Section-30 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 and as noted herein- above there is no dispute about the transfer.
20. A perusal of Section-29B of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 indicates that once allotment of surplus land vested in the State Government is made under the Chapter V of the Act' 1960 to any person other than a Department of the State Government, the same shall be subject to the provisions of the Code as defined in Section- 2(6A) means the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 [Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 for the State of Gujarat]. It is, thus, evident that after allotment of the surplus land vested in the State Government under the Act' 1960, the allotted land would be governed by the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.
Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 20:56:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5222/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026 undefined
21. Reverting back to the Government Resolution dated 11.03.1996, we may record that all lands of different nature allotted or granted by the State Government mentioned therein are governed by the Land Revenue Code, 1879.
22. The submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader about the applicability of the Government Resolution dated 11.03.1996 for conversion of the land-in-question from new tenure to old tenure after allotment of the same under the provisions of the Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, on the ground that the lands allotted under the said provision, has not been included in the said Government Resolution, is not acceptable.
23. The objections taken to the applicability of the Government Resolution dated 11.03.1996 and the power drawn by the Mamlatdar thereunder are wholly misconceived and hence, rejected.
24. Lastly, looking to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Vaidya Amitkumar Ashwinkumar reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL- Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 20:56:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5222/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026 undefined HC249074 relied by the learned Assistant Government Pleader to substantiate his submission, we may only say that it is difficult for us to comprehend the reason for the reliance placed on the said decision.
25. The appeal stands dismissed, accordingly, both on the grounds of delay as well as on merits.
Consequently, the civil application for stay would not survive and the same is disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 20:56:44 IST 2026