Mamlatdar has jurisdiction to convert surplus land allotted under Ceiling Act from new to old tenure.

The land in question (Survey No. 140 paiki 1, Radhanpur) was declared "surplus land" under Section 21 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, in 1977

It was subsequently transferred to Respondent No. 5 (original owner) under Section 30 of the same Act in 1982

In 1997, the Mamlatdar, Radhanpur, permitted the conversion of the land from "new tenure" to "old tenure" for agricultural purposes upon payment of a premium, following which the petitioner purchased the land via a registered sale deed

One year later, the Deputy Collector initiated suo motu proceedings to review the Mamlatdar's conversion order based on a 1998 Government Resolution (GR).

The Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD), upheld the cancellation of the conversion in 2017

The learned Single Judge set aside the SSRD's order, leading to this intra-court appeal by the State, which was filed with a delay of 793 days

Whether the delay of 793 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) can be condoned in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for administrative inter-se delays

Whether the Mamlatdar had the jurisdiction under Government Resolutions dated 11.03.1996 and 21.08.1996 to convert land allotted under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, from new tenure to old tenure

The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay, requiring a "sufficient cause" and a satisfactory explanation for every day of delay

Substantively, the court relied on Section 29B of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, which stipulates that once surplus land is allotted to a person, it becomes subject to the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879

It further applied Government Resolutions dated 11.03.1996 and 21.08.1996, which delegated powers to the Mamlatdar for the conversion of new tenure lands to old tenure

Regarding the delay, the Court found that the State's affidavit revealed significant, unexplained gaps (approx. 30 days each) between internal communications, failing to meet the legal standard for condonation

On merits, the State argued the Mamlatdar lacked jurisdiction because the 1996 GR did not explicitly mention "Ceiling Act" lands

The Court rejected this, reasoning that under Section 29B of the Ceiling Act, once land is allotted, it is governed by the Land Revenue Code

Since the 1996 GRs applied to lands governed by the Code and the GR dated 21.08.1996 specifically conferred conversion powers upon the Mamlatdar for lands allotted under the Ceiling Act, the original conversion order was legally valid

The Court also noted that the suo motu action was improperly based on a 1998 GR that was not in force at the time of the 1997 conversion and was later cancelled

It held that the State failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the 793-day delay

On the merits, it held that the Mamlatdar possessed the requisite jurisdiction to order the tenure conversion under the prevailing Government Resolutions and statutory framework

All connected civil applications for stay were disposed of accordingly