M. R. CALLA, J. ( 1 ) THE learned Single Judge decided Special Civil Application Nos. 8102, 8103, 6594, 6595, 6596, 6597, 6598, 6599, 7536, 7608, 10320, 10321, 10322 and 10323 of 1995 by a common judgment and order dated 21. 10. 1997. One Dahyabhai Vestabhai, owner of land bearing survey No. 378/1 situated at village Dumas divided the said land into 48 plots. He applied for permission to sell these sub plots to make use thereof for non-agricultural purposes to the Assistant Collector, Olpad Prant, Surat under Sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The concerned Assistant collector vide his order dated 29th April, 1967 granted permission to the holder of the aforesaid land with certain conditions inter alia to make use of sub-plots for non-agricultural purpose by transferring within two years from the date of the order. On 20th May, 1967, the owner of the land sold out the sub-plots to 48 persons including the petitioners in the present cases by registered sald deeds. Under the Town Planning scheme as was published on 23rd December, 1969, the land in question was put under reservation for the purpose of extension of aerodrome for civil aviation and transport. The purchasers-petitioners took certain steps for extension of time limit by the Assistant collector and also moved applications under the Bombay Land Revenue Code for non-agricultural permission. The permission was declined by the Taluka Development officer on 18th June, 1971. Appeals against this order dated 18th June, 1971 were also dismissed. The State Government vide letter dated 20th April, 1981, issued direction that the permission to sell all the sub-plots should be treated as automatically cancelled. The concerned Mamlatdar ordered for entering the names of the original owner in the revenue record in respect of the land in dispute. Though the petitioners raised grievance that this order had been passed without giving an opportunity to them while their names have been entred in the revenue records in the year 1969-70 and the entry with regard to their names continued in the revenue records, the concerned Mamlatdar ultimately passed order dated 21st October, 1993 entering the names of the original owner in the revenue records. This gave rise to the filing of the Special Civil Applications as aforesaid. This gave rise to the filing of the Special Civil Applications as aforesaid. ( 2 ) LEARNED Single Judge found that it was not necessary to consider the various contentions because in his opinion, the matter was required to be considered by a High power Committee of the State Government after hearing the parties concerned. Accordingly, the State of Gujarat has been directed to constitute a three member committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to decide the controversy after hearing all the parties concerned i. e. , purchasers-petitioners, original owner of the land, surat Municipal Corporation, Surat Urban Development Authority and Airport Authority of India, New Delhi through its representative at Surat and this Committee has to decide after hearing all the parties as to whether the land in question has to be reserved for the public purpose i. e. , for extension of the aerodrome for civil aviation and transport and if at all it is decided to reserve for such purpose, necessary decision has to be taken then and there to acquire the land and to see that acquisition proceedings are completed within reasonable time, and if the Committee decides that this land is not required to be reserved for the aforesaid purpose, necssary decision is to be taken for grant of permission for construction of house by the petitioners on the land in dispute. This exercise has to be undertaken and completed within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of the order. All the parties have been directed to maintain status quo in respect of the land in dispute till the matter is decided by the Government and liberty has been granted to the petitioners for revival of the Special Civil Applications in case of difficulty and the rule has been made absolute in terms as aforesaid. ( 3 ) AGAINST this common judgment and order containing innocuous directions and leaving the matter for the ultimate decision by the Committee constituted by the State of gujarat itself and headed by the Chief Secretary, the State of Gujarat has preferred these time barred Letters Patent Appeals with Civil Applications in each of these Letters Patent appeals seeking condonation of delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for a period of 171 days. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned Asstt. Government Pleader and have gone through the civil Applications. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned Asstt. Government Pleader and have gone through the civil Applications. The certified copy of the impugned order dated 21. 10. 1997 was received by the concerned Branch on 17th December, 1997. As per the contents of the applications seeking condonation of delay, the certified copy was submitted to the concerned Clerk who found out files on 8. 1. 1998 for submission before the Assistant. The assistant submitted a note on 21. 1. 1998 to obtain opinion from the Collector, Surat, and also from the Government Pleader. On 22nd January, 1998, the matters was dealt with by the Section Officer, Under Secretary (Land Reforms) and Deputy Secretary (Land reforms) and on 27th January, 1998, the Secretary gave his sanction. It was then noted on 20th February, 1998 that no reply has been received from the Collector, Surat or the government Pleader. It is stated in ground c of application seeking condonation of dealy that the Secretary (LR) instructed on 12th March, 1998 to file appeals against the impugned order dated 21. 10. 1997. It appears that despite such instructions issued by the concerned Secretary, no immediate steps were taken and it is stated that the file was sent to the Legal Department. The Legal Department also accorded sanction to file Letters patent Appeals in March, 1998, yet the appeals were not filed and the matter travelled from one table to another table for awaiting replies and papers and although the memos of appeal bear the date of 3rd May, 1998 on the index and summer vacation in the Court commenced on 9th May, 1998, yet the appeals were filed on 15th June, 1998. On the date when the time barred Letters Patent Appeals were filed, they were not accompanied with any application for condonation of delay and the applications for condonation of delay appear to have been filed in July, 1998. It is thus clear that the concerned department and the officers never took the matter seriously and despite the decision taken by the concerned Secretary in March, 1998 and instructions issued by him to file appeals, the matter was taken from pillar to post in the Department. It is thus clear that the concerned department and the officers never took the matter seriously and despite the decision taken by the concerned Secretary in March, 1998 and instructions issued by him to file appeals, the matter was taken from pillar to post in the Department. The contents of the applications seeking condonation of delay make it clear that it is a case of callous negligence and inaction on the part of the concerned officers and it is hardly a case in which it can be said that the applicants were prevented by any reasonable and sufficient cause from filing the appeals within time. Not only that, the appeals on the date when they were filed, were time barred by 171 days. It is noticed with regrets, no less then surprise, that the time barred appeals were not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay and applications for condonation of delay were filed subsequently after unexplained number of days from the date on which the appeals were filed. We have noticed with shock and surprise that in large number of Letters Patent Appeals filed by the State of Gujarat, the question of filing of LPAs even after receipt of the certified copy of the judgment is not taken and pursued seriously as if the law of limitation does not exist for them and as if the delay is to be condoned as a matter of course on the ground of what they call a procedural or adminsitrative delay. Not only that even at the time when the time barred Letters Patent appeals are filed, care is not taken that applications seeking condonation of delay are filed along with such time barred appeals. After filing the time barred Letters Patent appeals, they wait till the Registry of this Court points out that the appeal is time barred as if it is not known to the concerned Department and the Officer of the Government pleader at the time of filing the time barred appeals that such appeals are time barred and they have to be accompanied with the application for condonation of delay. We have made these observations because we have noticed such dismal situation in large number of cases coming up before this Court in which invariably there is delay of hundreds of days. We have made these observations because we have noticed such dismal situation in large number of cases coming up before this Court in which invariably there is delay of hundreds of days. Therefore these observations are addressed to the responsive virtuous litigant State of Gujarat and its functionaries and concerned Law Officers who must realise that some times very important matters may go unadjudicated on merits if the appeals are filed beyond the period prescribed without a proper and plausible explanation for the delay and therefore care has to be taken by the responsive Government to see that such instances have no recurrence in future and the appeals are filed within time. ( 5 ) BE that as it may, the fact remains that there is no case for condonation of delay in the cases at hand. All these Civil Applications seeking condonation of delay are therefore hereby rejected. In doing so, we have also kept in view the nature of the directions as given by the learned single Judge to which we have already made reference in the earlier part of the order. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the time barred Letters Patent Appeals cannot be entertained and all the 14 time barred Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed as such. ( 7 ) IN view of the orders passed as above, no orders are required to be passed in the civil Application for stay filed in these matters and all the 14 Civil Applications for stay are also disposed of accordingly. .