State’s 1,055-day delay sinks land-law appeal; Gujarat HC directs government to file proper paragraph-wise replies

The respondent’s sale deed was executed on 21 June 1982, and the corresponding mutation entry was also made in 1982.

After approximately 26 years, the Collector initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, and declared the sale deed void.

The learned Single Judge quashed the Collector’s order on the ground of gross and unexplained delay.

The State preferred an intra-court appeal, accompanied by an application seeking condonation of 1,055 days’ delay.

The State relied mainly on certain communications exchanged between authorities, but did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The affidavit filed by the Collector before the writ court also did not explain when or how the Collector acquired knowledge of the alleged contravention and was not a paragraph-wise reply to the writ petition.

Whether the State had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1,055 days in filing the intra-court appeal.

Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the Collector’s suo motu proceedings under Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, when those proceedings were initiated approximately 26 years after execution of the sale deed.

Whether the State authorities’ failure to file a proper paragraph-wise affidavit affected the Court’s assessment of the controversy.

The Court applied Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, under which the Collector’s proceedings concerning the impugned sale deed were initiated.

It applied the principle that suo motu proceedings exercising statutory power must be initiated within a reasonable period and that unexplained, inordinate delay—particularly where the relevant transaction and mutation entry were decades old—can invalidate the exercise of power.

The Court also held that State authorities must file a proper paragraph-wise affidavit responding to the pleadings; a short affidavit reserving the right to file a detailed reply later is impermissible absent a specific order or liberty from the Court, and failure to respond may amount to admission of the opposing pleadings.

The Court was not satisfied with the State’s explanation for the 1,055-day delay, as the application merely referred to communications exchanged at substantial intervals and disclosed no proper justification.

On the merits, the Collector’s proceedings were initiated 26 years after the sale deed and without any explanation as to when the alleged violation came to the Collector’s knowledge, despite the mutation entry having been made in 1982.

The State’s failure to file a paragraph-wise response further weakened its case and prevented effective rebuttal of the writ petition’s allegations.

Since no reasoning in the Single Judge’s judgment was successfully challenged, the Division Bench found no basis to interfere.

The learned Single Judge’s decision quashing the Collector’s suo motu proceedings under Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, therefore remained undisturbed.

The connected civil application for stay was disposed of as infructuous.

The Court also directed the learned Government Pleader’s office to ensure that State authorities file proper paragraph-wise affidavits in future, except where a short affidavit is specifically permitted by the Court.