Isabella Mariam

The Gujarat High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Gujarat with an unexplained delay of 837 days, both on grounds of delay and on merits. The Court found that the State had failed to follow its own Litigation Policy while filing the appeal, which challenged a Single Judge's order restoring mutation entries in favour of a respondent who had purchased agricultural land in Gujarat despite being recognized as an agriculturist in another state. The Court directed the Government Pleader to instruct all Assistant Government Pleaders to exercise due diligence while drafting delay condonation applications, warning that casual explanations in future may be treated as incompetence.

The matter arose from a State appeal filed with a delay of 837 days seeking condonation of delay and challenging a judgment that had set aside action taken by revenue authorities against a purchaser of agricultural land. The dispute concerned proceedings initiated by the Deputy Collector under Section 63 read with Section 84(C) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, treating the purchaser as a non-agriculturist of Gujarat. Parallel suo motu proceedings were later initiated by the Collector under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 to cancel mutation entries dating back to 1995, 2001 and 2008.

Also Read: Detailed Appreciation Of Evidence Is Impermissible At Bail Stage : Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Bail In SC/ST Act Murder Case

The purchaser contended before the writ court that he was recognized as an agriculturist in another State and relied on documentary evidence and binding precedent of a Full Bench of the High Court recognizing the right of agriculturists outside Gujarat to purchase agricultural land within the State. He also raised objections regarding delay in exercise of revisional powers and lack of jurisdiction in RTS proceedings.

The State sought to justify the appeal despite the delay, asserting absence of negligence and citing pendency of a challenge to the Full Bench decision before the Apex Court.

The Court recorded at the outset that “the present State appeal is delayed by 837 days for which, no plausible explanation has been offered in the application seeking condonation of delay.” It observed that "The procedural delay in filing the present appeal casually explained with the assertions that there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant, is wholly unacceptable. We may note that upon noticing frequent filing of delayed letters patent appeals (Intra-court appeals), directions were issued by this Court to formulate a litigation policy to provide a time bound process to form opinion for filing of letters patent appeal by the competent authority, so that the filing of frivolous and highly delayed State appeals may be curbed".

On the Gujarat State Litigation Policy, the Bench stated that “Accountability is the touch stone of the State litigation policy notified by the Government notification dated 29.06.2024.” It further recorded that “The procedure, as prescribed and notified by the State Government, has not been followed by its own officers in filing of the present appeal.”

Regarding the binding precedent Preetisingh Mukandsingh Shikh v. State of Gujarat, the Court noted: “the present is a matter where the Full Bench of this Court has already laid down the ratio that even an agriculturist recognized as such, outside the State, is entitled to purchase the agricultural land within the State of Gujarat, which has simply been followed by the learned Single Judge.” It added that “being bound by the Full Bench decision of this Court, it was ordinarily not open for the learned Single Judge to deviate from the law laid down therein.”

Rejecting the contention based on pendency before the Apex Court, the Bench recorded, “Suffice it to say that the ratio of the Full bench judgment of this Court is still binding on us, inasmuch as, the effect and operation of the said decision has not been stayed by the Apex Court.” It also observed that “The status-quo order dated 30.07.2012 passed by the Apex Court in restraining the creation of third party rights does not give license to the revenue authorities of the State to initiate fresh proceedings.”

On the conduct of State officers, the Court stated, “The present is a glaring case of State apathy where the State Revenue Officers have conveniently ignored the binding law declared by this Court.” It further recorded that “The State cannot be expected to litigate in order to defend contemptuous action of the Officers of the State, who proceed to take decisions on their own whims and fancies, ignoring the binding decisions of the Court of law.”

The Court directed that “This order is to be treated as a warning to the State officers to desist from bringing such litigations in this Court on behalf of the State where they themselves have disobeyed the binding decisions of this Court. This order shall be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State and also the Revenue Secretary by the Registrar General of the High Court to circulate amongst all Officers of the State under their control and supervision, as a warning from the Court.”

“This order shall also be placed before the learned Advocate General as well as the Legal Secretary, Law Department of the State, who shall make an inquiry collectively, as to how and in what manner the present appeal has been filed with an inordinate delay of 837 days so as to take necessary steps so as to put their houses in order, or else this Court will be constrained to take some harsh decisions if such occurrences are repeated in future.”

Also Read: Unmarried Women Cannot Be Denied Public Employment On Presumption Of Marriage And Relocation: Gujarat High Court

“The learned Government Pleader of the High Court is also directed to take note of this order and issue necessary instructions to all the Assistant Government Pleaders in his office, to remain attentive in the matter of drafting of the application seeking condonation of delay along with the State’s letters patent appeals (Intra-court appeals) and place on record all necessary material to explain the delays.”

“In the course of drafting of the delay condonation application, the concerned Assistant Government Pleader be required to ask some uncomfortable questions from the officers of the State bringing instructions, but that should not desist them from bringing correct and complete facts before the Court. The learned Government Pleader of the High Court shall also convey to the learned Assistant Government Pleaders that any casual explanation in future may be treated as incompetence on their part. The appeal stands dismissed, both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Resultantly, pending civil application stands disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Hetal Patel, Assistant Government Pleader

For the Respondents: A. B. Patel, Advocate

Case Title: State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Kishanbhai Nanalal Shah
Neutral Citation: 2026: GUJHC:13379-DB
Case Number: R/Civil Application No. 437 of 2026 with Letters Patent Appeal No. 39011 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal, Justice D.N. Ray