Gujarat High Court
Vinubhai Mangalbhai Shah vs District Collector – Surendranagar on 25 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 29/01/2026
Pronounced On : 25/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2876 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2018
(FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF)
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2876 of 2014
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2919 of 2014
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6700 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
- √
=======================================================
VINUBHAI MANGALBHAI SHAH
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR - SURENDRANAGAR & ORS.
=======================================================
Appearance:
Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 :-
MR BB NAIK, Sr. Adv. with MR PARTHIV A BHATT(5331) for
the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAY TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR DILIP B RANA(691) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5
Special Civil Application No.2919/2014 :-
MR BB NAIK, Sr. Adv. with MR PARTHIV A BHATT(5331) for
the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAY TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR SATYAM CHHAYA for the Respondent(s) No. 10
Special Civil Application No.6700/2016 :-
MR GM AMIN for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAY TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR DILIP B RANA(691) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
=======================================================
Page 1 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Since all these matters are arising out of the
common issues, they were being heard together and
are being decided by this common CAV judgment.
2. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the parties
waive service of notice of rule.
3. Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 has been
filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India as well as under the
provision of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy
Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance, 1949
(hereinafter referred to as “Ordinance, 1949″ for
short” with following reliefs,
“[A] xxx xxx xxx.
[B] YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ
of mandamus or a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction directing the revenue
authorities, including the respondent Nos.1
and 2 not to initiate any further proceedings
under Section 54 read with Section 75 of the
Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and
Agricultural Land Ordinance, 1949 against the
petitioner for purchase or sale of lands by
him after the year 1966.
[C] YOUR LORDSHIPs may be pleased to issue a writ
of certiorari or a writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or directing quashing and setting aside
the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the
Page 2 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
Collector, Surendranagar in Gharkhed
Ordinance Appeal No.31/2010 [Annexure-E];
order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the Deputy
Collector, Patadi in Gharkhed Ordinance Case
No.3/12-13 [Annexure-G]; and the order dated
20.02.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector,
Patadi in Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.2/12/13
[Annexure-H].
[D] xxx xxx xxx
9. It is further prayed that during the
admission, hearing and final disposal of the
petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to
stay and suspend the implementation,
execution and operation of the order dated
29.09.2011 passed by the Collector,
Surendranagar in Gharkhed Ordinance Appeal
No.31/2010 [Annexure-E]; order dated
20.02.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector,
Patadi in Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.3/12-13
[Annexure-G]; and order dated 20.02.2013
passed by the Deputy Collector, Patadi in
Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.2/12-13 [Annexure-
H] by appropriate interim stay order.”
4. Special Civil Application No.2919/2014 has been
filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India as well as under the
provision of the Bombay Land Revenue Code
(hereinafter referred to as “Revenue Code” for
short” with following reliefs,
“(A) xxx xxx xxx.
(B) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ
Page 3 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
of certiorari or a writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing and setting aside
the judgment and order dated 13.05.2011
passed by the learned Secretary (Appeals)
vide order No.MVV/Ghatkhed/SNR/2/2010 and
further be pleased to allow the said revision
application and set aside the orders dated
19.12.2009 passed by the Collector,
Surendranagar and order dated 09.06.2009
passed by the Deputy Collector, Dhrangdhra
for the reasons stated in the memo of
petition and in the interest of justice.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal
of the petition, YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased
to stay and suspend the implementation,
execution and operation of the judgment and
order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the learned
Secretary (Appeals) vide order
No.MVV/Ghatkhed/SNR/2/2010; and orders dated
19.12.2009 passed by the Collector,
Surendranagar and order dated 09.06.2009
passed by the Deputy Collector, Dhrangdhra
and restrain the authorities from making any
entries in the revenue record pursuant to the
aforesaid orders pending admission, hearing
and final disposal of this petition.
(D) xxx xxx xxx.
(E) xxx xxx xxx.
(F) xxx xxx xxx."
5. Special Civil Application No.6700/2016 has been
filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and
Page 4 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
226 of the Constitution of India as well as under
the provision of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy
Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance, 1949
(hereinafter referred to as “Ordinance, 1949″ for
short” with following reliefs,
“A) xxx xxx xxx.
B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a
writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing and setting aside the
impugned order passed by learned Special
Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in
Revision Application No.8 of 2012 dated
15.2.2016 in the interest of justice
C) Be pleased to stay execution, implementation
and operation of the impugned orders passed
by learned Special Secretary (Appeals),
Revenue Department in Revision Appln.No.8 of
2012 dated 15.2.2016 during pending hearing
and final disposal of this petition in the
interest of justice.
D) xxx xxx xxx."
6. The brief facts Special Civil Application
No.2876/2014 in nutshell are as under,
6.1 The petitioner viz., Vinubhai Mangalbhai Shah
applied before the Collector, Surendranagar
for issuance of certificate holding him to be
an agriculturist and pursuant thereto, on
30.04.1966, the Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra
issued certificate under Section 54(1) read
with Rule 18(i) of the Ordinance, 1949.
Page 5 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
6.2 On the strength of the said certificate, the
petitioner purchased land bearing Survey
No.115 admeasuring 5 Acres 21 Gunthas
situated in Village : Metasar, Taluka :
Dasera, District : Surendranagar (hereinafter
referred to as “the land in question” for
short) from one Harijan Mulabhai Ramabhai by
way of executing registered sale deed and
pursuant to the said registered sale deed,
Entry No.140 came to be mutated in the
revenue record on 05.10.1966 and subsequently
certified also on 09.06.1967. Not only that,
on the strength of the said certificate, the
petitioner herein had also purchased various
parcels of land in Dasera Taluka of
Surendranagar district.
6.3 The Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra issued show
cause notice on 01.12.1984 upon the
petitioner under Section 54 read with Section
75 of the Ordinance, 1949 to show cause as to
why the land in question should not be
confiscated and as to why he should not be
evicted from the land in question on the
ground that the though the petitioner is not
an agriculturist, he has purchased the said
land in question.
6.4 On receipt of the said show cause notice, the
petitioner submitted detailed reply along
with necessary documents including the
registered sale deed for the purchase of the
Page 6 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
land after he became the agriculturist on the
basis of the certificate issued by the Deputy
Collector.
6.5 The Deputy Collector, after considering the
documents produced by the petitioner
including the certificate, dropped the
aforesaid proceedings by an order dated
06.02.1985.
6.6 Thereafter, the petitioner had also purchased
land bearing Survey No.632/1 pk. admeasuring
5 Acre 37 Guntha from one Punjabhai Mithabhai
(the predecessor in title of the respondent
no.3) by executing registered sale deed and
pursuant thereto, Entry No.2396 came to be
mutated in the revenue record in the year
1988-89.
6.7 Despite above facts, the Deputy Collector
again issued show cause notice upon the
petitioner on 10.08.2006 under Section 54
read with Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949
to show cause as to why the land bearing
Survey No.632/1 pk. should not be confiscated
and as to why he should not be evicted from
the said land.
6.8 On receipt of the aforesaid notice, the
petitioner had again submitted his detailed
reply on 21.09.2006 along with all required
material and evidence.
6.9 After considering the material and evidence
produced by the petitioner along with the
Page 7 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
reply, the Deputy Collector, by an order
dated 31.03.2010, had withdrawn the said
notice issued for the land bearing Survey
No.632/1 pk.
6.10 However, the heirs of said Punjabhai
Mithabhai viz., Govindbhai i.e. the
respondent no.3 herein had challenged the
aforesaid order before the Collector,
Surendranagar by filing Appeal being Gharkhed
Ordinance Appeal No.3/2010.
6.11 Pending above numbered appeal, the petitioner
herein sold the said land to one Rajesh
Jayantilal Shah by way of executing
registered sale deed dated 27.08.2010.
6.12 The Collector allowed the aforesaid Appeal by
quashing and setting aside the order dated
31.03.2010 passed by the Deputy Collector and
thereby directed that the land bearing Survey
No.632/1 pk. be entered into in the name of
Government.
6.13 In the meantime, the petitioner herein had
transferred land bearing Survey Nos.102 pk.2
& 102 pk.3 in favour of his daughter and
grandson viz., Smitaben Hemendra Maniyar and
Setul Hemendra Maniyar and pursuant thereto,
entry came to be mutated.
6.14 Aforesaid order dated 29.09.2011 passed by
the Collector was challenged by one
Rajeshkumar Jayantilal, who is subsequent
purchaser (the petitioner of Special Civil
Page 8 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
Application No.6700/2016), before the learned
SSRD by filing Revision Application No.MVV/
Gharkhed/ SNR/8/2012, wherein the learned
SSRD directed the parties to maintain status
quo.
6.15 However despite an order of status quo, the
Deputy Collector in another proceeding being
Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.3/12-13, by an
order dated 20.02.2013, directed the
authority concerned to evict Smitaben
Hemendra Maniyar and Setul Hemendra Maniyar
from the land bearing Survey No.102 pk.2, who
are the daughter and grandson of the
petitioner.
6.16 Not only that in another proceeding being
Gharkhed Ordinance No.2/2012-13, the Deputy
Collector by an order dated 20.02.2013, held
that the transfer of the land by the
petitioner in favour of his daughter is
illegal and thereby directed the authority
concerned authority to remove them from the
land bearing Survey No.102 pk.3.
6.17 Therefore against the order dated 20.03.2013
passed by the Deputy Collector, Patadi in
Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.3/12-13; the order
dated 20.03.2013 passed by the Deputy
Collector, Patadi in Gharkhed Ordinance Case
No.2/12-13 and the order dated 29.09.2011
passed by the Collector, Surendranagar in
Gharkhed Ordinance Appeal No.3/2010, the
Page 9 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
aforesaid writ petition has been preferred.
7. The brief facts Special Civil Application
No.2919/2014 in nutshell are as under,
7.1 The petitioner viz., Ramniklal Mangaldas Shah
purchased land bearing Survey Nos.782 pk.,
739, 422, 959, 957 and 958 situated in the
sim of Village : Dasada, District :
Surendranagar by way of executing registered
sale deed and pursuant thereto, Entry
Nos.1350, 1446, 1472 and 2537 were mutated in
the revenue record.
7.2 Out of aforesaid lands, the petitioner had
sold out land bearing Survey No.422 to his
brother, Vinubhai Mangaldas Shah by way of
executing registered sale deed and pursuant
thereto, Entry No.2683 came to be mutated in
the revenue record on 27.06.1988. whereas
land bearing Survey Nos.956, 957 and 958 had
been sold out to one Jahiruddin Usmankhanji
by way of executing registered sale deed and
pursuant thereto, Entry No.4080 came to be
mutated in the revenue record.
7.3 However subsequently, the learned Mamlatdar,
Surendranagar submitted a report to the
learned Assistant Collector, Dhrangadhra on
01.11.1987 inter alia stating that Entry
No.2537 dated 01.10.1985 mutated in respect
of land bearing Survey Nos.956, 957 and 958
certified on 24.11.1985 is against the
provision of the Section 75 of the Ordinance,Page 10 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
1949 and on the basis of the said report,
inquiry was initiated and it was decided by
an order dated 31.12.1988 that the transfer
of the land bearing Survey Nos.956, 957 and
958 is against the provision of the
Ordinance, 1949 and in violation of Section
54 of the Ordinance, 1949 and thereby it was
ordered to evict the petitioner from the said
land under Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949.
7.4 Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner
preferred Appeal before the learned
Collector, who by an order dated 18.05.1991
rejected the said Appeal.
7.5 Against the said order of the learned
Collector, the petitioner preferred Appeal
before the Hon’ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal,
Ahmedabad, who by an order dated 25.09.2000
remanded the matter back to the learned
Deputy Collector for deciding it afresh,
however despite specific direction to decide
afresh on merits, the learned Deputy
Collector, by an order dated 09.06.2009,
turned down the request of the petitioner by
confirming his earlier order dated
31.12.1998.
7.6 Against the aforesaid order, Appeal being
Gharkhed/Ord/ Appeal Case No.1/2009-10 was
preferred before the learned Collector, who
by an order dated 19.12.2009, rejected the
said appeal.
Page 11 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
7.7 Against the aforesaid orders of the revenue
authorities, the petitioner preferred
Revision Application before the learned
Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department under
Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code
along with stay application, however, the
said stay came to be rejected by an order
dated 09.07.2010.
7.8 Against the said order rejecting stay
application, writ petition being Special
Civil Application No.624/2011 was preferred,
however, the said writ petition came to be
disposed of by an order dated 18.02.2011 with
a direction to the learned SSRD to decide the
main Revision Application within a period of
three months.
7.9 However without properly considering the
facts of the case, the learned SSRD, by
impugned order dated 13.05.2011, rejected the
said Revision Application. Hence, aforesaid
writ petition has been preferred.
8. The brief facts Special Civil Application
No.6700/2016 in nutshell are as under,
8.1 The petitioner viz., Rajeshkumar Jayantilal
Shah had purchased the land bearing Survey
No.632/1 situated in the sim of Village :
Dasada (Patadi), Taluka : Dasada, District :
Surendranagar from one Vinubhai Mangalji Shah
by way of executing registered sale deed on
27.08.2010 and pursuant thereto, EntryPage 12 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
No.6509 came to be mutated in the revenue
record on 30.09.2010.
8.2 However prior thereto, a show cause notice
came to be issued under Section 54 of the
Ordinance, 1949 on 16.09.2006 upon the
original land owner, wherein detailed
objections have been filed by the original
land owner, Vinubhai Shah and others and
having considered the said objections, the
learned Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra had
taken decision to withdraw the said notice.
8.3 However the aforesaid order was challenged by
the heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhai viz.,
Govindbhai Punjabhai by filing Appeal
No.31/2010 before the learned Collector,
Surendranagar contending inter alia that at
the time of purchase of the land, the said
Vinubhai Mangalbhai Shah was not an
agriculturist. However without properly
considering the facts of the case, the
learned Collector allowed the said appeal by
an order dated 29.09.2011.
8.4 Against the said order, the petitioner
preferred Revision Application No.8/2012
before the learned Special Secretary (Revenue
Department), which came to be rejected by an
order dated 15.02.2016. Hence, aforesaid writ
petition has been preferred.
9. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. B.B. Naik
assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Parthiv BhattPage 13 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi
for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned
advocate, Mr. Dilip Rana for the respondent nos.3
to 5 in Special Civil Application No.2876/2014;
learned Senior Counsel, Mr. B.B. Naik assisted by
learned advocate, Mr. Parthi Bhath for the
petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the
respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate, Mr.
Satyam Chhaya for the respondent no.3 in Special
Civil Application No.2919/2014; and learned
advocate, Mr. G.M. Amin for the petitioner,
learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the respondent
nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate, Mr. Dilip Rana
for the respondent nos.3 to 5 in Special Civil
Application No.6700/2016.
10. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik appearing for the
petitioner of Special Civil Application
No.2876/2014 referred to the facts of the case as
stated above and submitted that the petitioner had
applied before the office of the Collector,
Surendranagar to issue certificate holding that
the petitioner is an agriculturist and pursuant
thereto, the learned Deputy Collector granted such
certificate on 30.04.1966 on certain terms and
conditions and pursuant thereto, the petitioner
had purchased land bearing Survey No.115 by way of
executing registered sale deed and on the basis of
the said registered sale deed, Entry No.140 came
to be mutated in the revenue record on 05.10.1966,
which was subsequently certified on 09.06.1967. He
Page 14 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
submitted that not only that, on the basis of the
said certificate issued in favour of the
petitioner, he had entered into various
transactions and purchased different parcels of
land by way of executing registered sale deed. He
submitted that however to the utter shock and
surprise of the petitioner, the learned Deputy
Collector had issued show cause notice under
Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Ordinance,
1949 upon the petitioner on 01.12.1984 to show
cause as to why the land purchased by him should
not be vested into Government and he should not be
evicted from the said land on the ground that
though the petitioner was not an agriculturist, he
has purchased the said land and on receipt of the
said notice, the petitioner submitted his detailed
reply along with necessary documents and after
considering the said set of documents produced by
the petitioner, the proceedings initiated by the
revenue authority by issuing notice under Section
54 read with Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949 has
been dropped on 06.12.1985. He submitted that
thereafter in the year 1988-89, the petitioner had
purchased another parcel of land bearing Survey
No.632/1 pk. admeasuring 5 Acre 37 Guntha from
Punjabhai Mithabhai, who is predecessor in title
of the respondent no.3 and pursuant thereto, Entry
No.2396 came to be mutated in the revenue record.
He submitted that however thereafter also, for the
very same ground, notice came to be issued upon
Page 15 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
the petitioner by the learned Deputy Collector
under Section 54 read with Section 75 of the
Ordinance, 1949 alleging inter alia that though
the petitioner is not an agriculturist, he had
purchased the land and on receipt of the said
notice, the petitioner again submitted his
detailed reply and after considering the same, the
said proceedings have been dropped by the learned
Deputy Collector. He submitted that however being
aggrieved by the said decision of dropping the
proceedings against the petitioner, the respondent
no.3 herein had preferred Appeal before the
learned Collector, who by an order dated
29.09.2011 allowed the said Appeal by quashing and
setting aside the order of the learned Deputy
Collector and also directed that the said land
should be vested to the Government. He, however,
submitted that in the interregnum period i.e. on
27.08.2010, the said land has been sold to one
Rajeshbhai Shah by way of executing registered
sale deed, therefore, the said Rajeshbhai had
challenged the said order of the learned Collector
before the learned SSRD by filing Revision
Application, however, the said Revision
application came to be dismissed, however during
the pendency of the said revision application,
there was an order of status quo to be maintained
by the parties, passed by the learned SSRD,
however despite the said fact, the learned Deputy
Collector had initiated proceedings under the
Page 16 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
Ordinance, 1949 and passed an order directing to
evict the petitioner from the said land, therefore
being aggrieved by the said decision, the present
petition has been preferred.
11. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik submitted that it
is an admitted position of fact that the
agricultural certificate has been issued by the
competent authority in favour of the petitioner
with certain terms and conditions and entry to
that effect was also effected in the revenue
record. He submitted that one of the conditions
imposed upon the petitioner while issuing said
certificate was to the effect that within a period
of one year, the petitioner has to purchase the
land and accordingly on the basis of the said
certificate, the petitioner had purchased
different parcels of land and entries to that
effect were also mutated in the revenue records.
He submitted that as stated above, twice the
proceedings under the Ordinance, 1949 were
initiated against the petitioner, however, those
proceedings have been dropped by the revenue
authority after considering the material placed
along with reply submitted by the petitioner,
however, being aggrieved by last decision taken by
the authority dropping the proceedings against the
petitioner, the respondent no.3 had preferred
Appeal before the learned Collector, who allowed
the said Appeal, therefore, the present petition
has been preferred. He has taken me through the
Page 17 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
observations given by the learned Collector at the
time of allowing the Appeal and submitted that at
the time of passing said order, the learned
Collector was of the opinion that before entering
into transaction of land, the petitioner has to
obtain prior permission from the competent
authority and, therefore, he cannot be treated as
an agriculturist. He submitted that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court has
time and again in numerous case laws have held
that suo motu powers can be initiated within
reasonable time and admittedly here in the present
case on hand, such powers have been exercised by
the revenue authority after a period of more than
21 years and by no stretch of imagination, it can
be said that such powers have been exercised by
the revenue authority within reasonable time,
therefore, the said view adopted by the revenue
authority is unjust, illegal and against the
settled proposition of law and, therefore, the
orders of the learned Collector as well as the
learned SSRD are required to be quashed and set
aside.
12. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik submitted that so
far as the petitioner of Special Civil Application
No.2919/2014 is concerned, it is submitted that
the grandfather of the petitioner was an
agriculturist and during the period between 1969
to 1988, the said petitioner has purchased several
parcels of land by way of executing registered
Page 18 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
sale deed and entries to that effect were also
mutated in the revenue record and out of those
purchased land, the said petitioner had sold the
land bearing Survey No.422 to his brother,
Vinubhai Shah (who is the petitioner of Special
Civil Application No.2876/2014) and Entry No.2683
to that effect was also mutated in the revenue
record on 27.06.1988 and so far as the land
bearing Survey Nos.956, 957 and 958 are concerned,
the said lands were sold to one Jahiruddin
Usmankhanji by executing registered sale deed and
pursuant thereto, Entry No.4080 came to be mutated
in the revenue record. He, however, submitted that
the Mamlatdar submitted report in respect of entry
mutated in connection with the land bearing Survey
Nos.956, 957 and 958 against the provision of
Section 65 of the Ordinance, 1945, wherein the
proceedings had undertaken and ultimately at the
end of day, an order of eviction came to be passed
by the Deputy Collector, which was challenged
before the Collector, who remanded the matter
back, however on remand, the Deputy Collector
again confirmed his earlier order, which was
challenged before the Collector and, thereafter,
learned SSRD, however, the request of the
petitioner has been turned down by impugned
orders, therefore, the aforesaid petition has been
preferred.
13. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik submitted that in
fact, the said petitioner, Ramniklal Shah is the
Page 19 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
bonafide purchaser of the said lands and pursuant
to registered sale deed, entries were mutated,
however after long period of time, suo motu
proceedings have been undertaken against the
petitioner, wherein an order of eviction has been
passed. He, therefore, submitted that in view of
the various judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court, the
case of the petitioner is squarely covered and in
view of the ratio laid down in those decisions,
the present petition may be allowed and the entry
may be restored.
14. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik relied upon the
decision of this Hon’ble Court delivered in
Special Civil Application No.6935/1988 on
07.09.2005 (in case of Shah Prakashkumar Padamshi
Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.) essentially on the
ground that there was gross delay in initiation of
the suo motu proceedings and the Coordinate Bench
of this Court had exercised the discretion in
favour of the said petitioner and thereby allowed
the said writ petition by quashing and setting
aside the orders passed by the revenue
authorities. He submitted that the issue involved
in the present case is squarely covered as per the
principle laid down by the Coordinate Bench in the
said case. He further submitted that the order of
the learned Collector is directly challenged by
the petitioner before this Court instead of
challenging it before the learned SSRD as the
Page 20 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
revenue authority had abused the process of law by
exercising excessive powers against the petitioner
by issuing show cause notice despite the fact that
at earlier point of time, the proceedings have
been initiated and those proceedings have been
dropped by the competent authority, therefore, the
principle of constructive res judicate would be
applicable to the facts of the present case,
therefore, the present petition requires to be
decided on merits.
15. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik referred to and
relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs.
Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union
Ltd., reported in (2007) 11 SCC 363 and submitted
that the question of limitation being
jurisdictional question, therefore, the writ
petition is maintainable. He submitted that if the
Hon’ble Court would make cursory glance upon the
ratio laid down in the said decision, in that
event, it is found out that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has clarified the position of law in a very
succinct manner by observing that in absence of
any statutory limitation, the power of suo motu
revision is exercisable only within a reasonable
period and what would be the reasonable period
would depend upon the nature of the statute,
rights and liabilities thereunder and other
relevant factors.
16. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik submitted that in
Page 21 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
fact, the petitioner herein had become
“agriculturist” on the strength of certificate
issued by the competent revenue authority and
based upon which, he had entered into certain
transactions by way of executing registered sale
deed and indulged himself into agricultural
activities and, thereafter after certain period of
time, he had transferred certain parcels of land
in favour of his daughter and grandson and by
virtue of his legal heirs (sI2I lI3Ina varsdaro), the
daughter and the grandson would automatically
become “agriculturist”. He submitted that in fact,
with a sole intent to defeat the rights of the
petitioner as an agriculturist, the order of the
Deputy Collector was challenged by the respondent
no.3 herein before the learned Collector, who
quashed and set aside the said order, which
resulted into filing of present petition directly
before this Ho’ble Court as there is clearly
violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed
under the Constitution of India in view of the
fact that earlier twice, the proceedings initiated
by the learned Deputy Collector have been dropped
by him considering the documentary evidence and
material available on record and, thereafter, an
order of eviction came to be passed against the
daughter and grandson of the petitioner from the
land, therefore, the aforesaid writ petition has
been preferred inter alia praying for quashment of
the impugned orders.
Page 22 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
17. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik has relied upon
following decisions,
(1) the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs.
Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk
Producers Union Ltd., reported in (2007) 11
SCC 363;
(2) the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case of Std. Rama Dubey (dead) By L.Rs.
Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation &
Ors., reported in AIR 1995 SC 1010;
(3) the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case of L. Hriday Narain Vs. Income Tax
Officer, Bareilly, reported in AIR 1971 SC
33;
(4) the decision of this Hon’ble Court in case
of Pravinkumar Vrajlal Sedani Vs. State of
Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2025 (3) GLR
2086;
(5) the decision of this Hon’ble Court in case
of Bharatbhai Naranbhai Vegda Vs. State of
Gujarat, reported in 2016 (2) GLR 1021;
(6) the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case
of State of Gujarat Vs. Amrutlal
Hansrajbhai & Ors., reported in 2007 (3)
GLH 743;
18. Referring to the observations made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court in the
aforesaid decisions, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.
Naik submitted that the case of the petitioner is
Page 23 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
squarely covered by those decisions, therefore,
the present petition may be allowed by quashing
and setting aside the impugned orders.
19. Learned advocate, Mr. Amin appearing for the
petitioner of Special Civil Application
No.6700/2014, at the outset, submitted that most
of the arguments related to the factual aspect of
the matter as well as the merit of case of the
petitioner have been canvassed by learned Senior
Counsel, Mr. Naik appearing in connected matters,
therefore, he is adopting the same. He, however,
submitted that certain few submissions, which are
relevant for the purpose of deciding the present
matter are required to be addressed. He submitted
that earlier, the order passed by the learned
Collector was directly challenged before this
Hon’ble Court, however the said writ petition was
withdrawn with a liberty to file revision
application before the learned SSRD and pursuant
to the liberty granted by this Hon’ble Court,
Revision Application was preferred before the
learned SSRD, however, the said revision
application was rejected without proper
consideration, therefore, the present petition has
been filed challenging those orders and in view of
the fact that the facts of all these matters are
analogous in nature, all these petitions are
clubbed together.
20. Learned advocate, Mr. Amin submitted that in fact,
the impugned order was passed in the year 2011,
Page 24 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
however prior thereto, the petitioner has already
purchased the land from one Vinubhai Shah, who is
petitioner of Special Civil Application
No.2876/2014 by way of executing registered sale
deed in the year 2010 and the petitioner herein is
an agriculturist by birth and in fact, powers have
been exercised by the revenue authorities on the
basis of the application preferred by legal heirs
of Punjabhai Mangalji, who has nothing to do with
the said proceedings in view of the fact that
forefather of the respondent no.3 had entered into
transaction with the predecessor in title by way
of executing registered sale deed, land has been
transferred and during his life span, he had never
challenged the said transaction, therefore, the
seller cannot have any legitimate right to
challenge the mutation of entry and/or any other
proceedings based on deed executed between the
parties. He further submitted that in the fact,
the exercise of powers beyond reasonable period
can be said to be illegal and unjust, that too, on
the basis of an application made by third party,
who has nothing to do with the said land. In this
regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan
Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported
in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
succinctly explained as to who can be said to be
aggrieved person and it has been observed that it
is a settled legal proposition that a stranger
Page 25 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding,
unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he
falls within the category of aggrieved persons.
21. Learned advocate, Mr. Amin, at this stage, has
drawn attention of this Court towards the order
dated 28.04.2011 passed by the Division Bench of
this Hon’ble Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.433
of 2011 in Special Civil Application No.6168 of
2010 (in case of Navuji Lalji Vaghela & Ors. Vs.
State of Gujarat & Ors., and emphasized the
observations made and submitted that the Division
Bench of this Hon’ble Court has held in a very
categorical terms that the party aggrieved must
have to show that any of his fundamental rights or
legal rights have been infringed and thereby the
party is aggrieved by such infringement, however
in the facts of the present case, as can be seen
from the facts narrated hereinabove, the
respondent no.3 cannot be said to be aggrieved
person and he cannot challenge the mutation of
entry after selling out the land by his father
long back.
22. At this stage, learned advocate, Mr. Amin referred
to the provision of Section 54 read with Section
75 of the Ordinance, 1949 and submitted that by no
stretch of imagination, it can be said that there
is express breach of the provision as alleged,
therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and is
required to be quashed and set aside. He further
submitted that in the recent decision of the
Page 26 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case of
State of Gujarat Vs. Hussainbhai Satarbhai Meman,
reported in 2024 (4) GLH 410, the Division Bench
has observed that the suo motu revision
proceedings under the provision of the Ordinance,
1949 has to be exercised within a reasonable time
and delayed proceedings much after delay are not
permissible when the mutation entries related to
the transactions were certified by the competent
authority at the relevant point of time. He
further submitted that if the Hon’ble Court would
make cursory glance upon the provision of the law,
in that event, it is evident that the authority
concerned cannot forfeit the land and waste the
said land to the Government in case of breach of
the law. He, therefore, submitted that the case of
the petitioner is squarely covered by the said
decisions.
23. Learned advocate, Mr. Amin, at this stage, has
relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2013) 4
SCC 465 as well as the decision of this Hon’ble
Court in case of Rinki Shashikant Gandhi Vs.
Mamlatdar Vadodara Taluka, reported in 2012 (2)
GLR 1275. Referring to the above facts of the case
and the decisions as stated above, learned
advocate, Mr. Amin submitted that in view of the
ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
well as this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid
Page 27 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
decision, the discretion may be exercised in
favour of the petitioners by quashing and setting
aside the impugned orders and thereby allow the
present petition.
24. Learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi appearing for the
State authorities has also opposed the present
petitions and submitted that the impugned orders
passed by the revenue authorities are just, legal
and based upon sound principle of law, therefore,
the said orders do not require any interference at
the hands of this Hon’ble Court. He submitted that
in fact on 04.05.1966, the agricultural
certificate came to be issued in favour of the
petitioner of Special Civil Application
No.2876/2014 by the concerned revenue authority
with certain terms and conditions, which are
required to be followed by the petitioner and one
of the conditions is that the petitioner has to
purchase the land within one year from the date of
issuance of the said certificate and second is
that before entering into sale transaction, prior
permission is required to be obtained by the
petitioner and here in the present case on hand,
the petitioner has not obtained any permission
from the competent authority and, therefore, the
said fact had come to the notice of the concerned
authority, therefore the proceedings under Section
54 of the Ordinance, 1949 were initiated, however
subsequently it has been dropped essentially on
the ground that the sale deed had been executed
Page 28 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
after the issuance of the certificate and entry
was also certified by the revenue authority. He
submitted that on issuance of the notice upon the
petitioner, reply was submitted by him and
ultimately at the end of day, the learned Deputy
Collector, by an order dated 31.03.2012, dropped
the proceedings so far as land bearing Survey
Nos.22 and 632/1 is concerned and so far as land
bearing Survey No.422 is concerned, the order came
to be passed to the effect that the transaction
took place between Vinubhai Shah and Ramliklal
Shah is in breach of Section 54 of the Ordinance,
1949 and, therefore, the order was passed under
Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949 for eviction and
consequential order of vesting the land to the
Government also came to be passed. He forcefully
submitted that the said order of the learned
Deputy Collector had never been challenged by the
petitioner before any competent authority,
therefore, the findings given and the observations
made by the competent authority in the said order
had attained finality qua the land bearing Survey
No.422 owned by the petitioner is concerned. He
submitted that however, the said order had been
challenged by the heirs of late Shri Punjabhai
Mithabhai qua land bearing Survey No.22 and 632/1
before the Collector by way of preferring Appeal
No.31/2010 and during the pendency of the said
proceedings, in the year 2010, the petitioner had
sold the land bearing Survey No.632/1 to one
Page 29 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
Rajesh Jayantilal Shah, who is the petitioner of
Special Civil Application No.6700/2016. He
submitted that the Collector allowed the said
appeal preferred by the legal heirs of Punjabhai
Mithabhai, therefore being aggrieved by the said
decision, writ petition was filed before this
Hon’ble Court, however thereafter, the said writ
petition came to be withdrawn by him with a
liberty to approach learned SSRD as the aforesaid
order was directly challenged before this Hon’ble
Court. He submitted that however in the meantime,
the learned Collector allowed the appeal preferred
by the heirs of late Shri Punjabhai Mithabhai by
quashing and setting aside the order dated
31.03.2010 passed by the learned Deputy Collector
qua land bearing Survey Nos.22 and 632/1,
therefore, the said order was challenged by
Rajeshbhai Shah before the learned SSRD, wherein
interim stay was granted. He further submitted
that on 20.02.2013, the learned Deputy Collector
had initiated eviction proceedings against
Smitaben Maniyar and Setul Maniyar, who are the
daughter and grandson of Vinubhai Shah, who is
petitioner of Special Civil Application
No.2876/2014 on account of breach of Section 54
read with Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949 and
accordingly, an order of eviction came to be
passed against them, however, the said order had
been challenged by the petitioner and not by the
daughter and grandson of the petitioner, who are
Page 30 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
aggrieved persons. He further submitted that
during the interregnum period, aforesaid
proceedings have been terminated by the Collector
by assigning specific reasons that self-same order
had been passed by the Hon’ble High Court, wherein
the order of stay has been granted, therefore,
subject to the outcome of the proceedings, those
proceedings are required to be terminated.
25. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi submitted that admittedly
the learned Deputy Collector had passed an order
to evict Smitaben Maniyar and Setul Maniyar from
the said parcel of land, therefore, they should be
considered as “aggrieved party” in those
proceedings, therefore, they have to challenge the
said order by way of initiating appropriate
proceedings. He submitted that in fact, Smitaben
Maniyar and Setul Maniyar had challenged the order
of the learned Deputy Collector before the learned
Collector, however, those proceedings were
terminated due to pendency of the present
proceedings, whereas in the writ petition being
Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 preferred
by Vinubhai Shah though he is not affecting party
to the said proceedings as the land had already
been transferred in the name of third party
against whom order had been passed, therefore,
relief sought for to quash and set aside the said
order is not permissible. He read the operative
part of the order and submitted that the
petitioner herein had transferred the land in
Page 31 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
favour of Smitaben Maniyar and Setul Maniyar and
their names were entered in the revenue records
and subsequently certified also and after certain
period of time, the said fact had come to the
notice of the revenue authority, therefore, the
authority had initiated proceedings against them,
therefore by no stretch of imagination, it can be
said that the petitioner is aggrieved party
because essentially the order is passed to evict
Smitaben Maniyar and Setul Maniyar from the said
land and, therefore, they are considered to be
“aggrieved party” and could have got legitimate
right to challenge the same by way of initiating
appropriate legal procedure before the competent
authority and the said part of the order cannot be
challenged by the petitioner before this Hon’ble
Court. He submitted that it is an admitted
position of fact that there is an alternative
statutory remedy available under the law by filing
revision application before the learned SSRD,
despite that, the present petition is filed
challenging the said decision, however considering
the above stated facts, same cannot be
entertained.
26. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi submitted that it is an
admitted position of fact that the petitioner of
Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 has sold
the land to the petitioner of Special Civil
Application No.6700/2016 viz., Rajesh Jayantilal
Shah, therefore after selling out the land, he
Page 32 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
cannot be said to be owner of the land bearing
Survey No.632/1, therefore, this Hon’ble Court may
not interfere with the same.
27. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi submitted that so far as
the legal submissions are concerned, as per
Section 54 of the Ordinance, 1949, no transfer is
permissible in favour of the non-agriculturist as
it is hit by the statutory provision of law. He
submitted that amendment in provision of the
Ordinance, 1949 came to be introduced in the year
2015, wherein it is stated that any sale, which
has taken place before 30.06.2015 in favour of
non-agriculturist, can be regularized on payment
of 10% jantri rate, copy of said amendment is
produced on record. He, however, submitted that
till date, the petitioner has not made any
application before the competent authority to
regularize the said transaction as per the
amendment carried out in the Government Resolution
during the pendency of the proceedings, therefore,
the relief as prayed for in the petition may not
be granted.
28. Learned advocate, Mr. Rana appearing for private
respondents in Special Civil Application
No.2876/2014 and Special Civil Application
No.6700/2016 has opposed the present petitions
and submitted that in fact, the petitioner of
Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 is not an
agriculturist and he had preferred an application
before the competent authority to declare him as
Page 33 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
agriculturist and his application was considered
by issuing certificate with certain directions. He
submitted that as per the said certificate, one of
the conditions is that within a period of one year
from the date of issuance of the certificate, the
petitioner has to purchase the land by executing
registered sale deed and second condition is that
before entering into sale transaction, he has to
obtain prior permission from the competent
authority and here in the present case on hand,
the petitioner had purchased the land by way of
executing deed within a period of one year but
prior permission has not been obtained from the
competent authority before entering into said
transaction, therefore, this is a clear case of
breach of the terms and conditions at the instance
of the petitioner. He submitted that in fact, the
father of the respondent no.1 has entered into
certain monetary transactions with the petitioner
as the petitioner was indulged into the finance
business since many years and at the time of
giving finance, he used to take signature upon
certain papers and under the guise of issuance of
such certificate by the competent authority, the
petitioner herein had already executed number of
sale deeds in his favour and usurped valuable land
of number of gullible persons. He submitted that
in fact, the private respondent has never entered
into transaction of sale deed with the petitioner
but they had taken certain amount as loan from the
Page 34 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
petitioner and in lieu thereof, the deed of
agreement had been executed between them and the
said fact is clearly found out from the documents
available on record. He submitted that in fact,
the competent authority has issued certificate in
favour of the petitioner and on the basis of the
said certificate, the petitioner herein has
transferred certain agricultural land in the name
of his daughter and his grandson under the
provision of the Hindu Succession Act. He
submitted that as the petitioner is not an
agriculturist by birth and he had become
agriculturist on the strength of the certificate
issued by the competent authority and, therefore,
rest of the family members cannot get status of an
agriculturist on the basis of the certificate
issued by the competent authority to the
petitioner only, despite the said fact, based upon
the said documentary material, certain lands have
been parted between the relatives and under the
guise of said certificate, name of other members
of the family came to be mutated in the revenue
record and, therefore, the respondent no.1 herein
has challenged the order of the learned Deputy
Collector before the competent revenue authority
and the learned Collector had, after verifying the
record and after considering the documentary
material, passed just and reasoned order, which
does not require interference at the hands of this
Hon’ble court. He submitted that as per the
Page 35 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
statutory provision of the law, the order of the
learned Collector is required to be challenged
before the learned SSRD instead of challenging
before this Hon’ble Court despite the fact that
statutory remedy is available under the law, in
that even, the present petition may not be
entertained. He submitted that so far as the
initiation of proceedings against Ramniklal Shah
is concerned, it is settled proposition of law
that once the entry is mutated and certified by
the competent also and those proceedings continues
for longer period of time and despite that fact,
if the authority concerned jumps to a conclusion
that the said entry mutated in the revenue record
is against the statutory provisions of law, in
that event, suo motu proceedings are required to
be initiated within reasonable period of time and
here in the present case on hand, as stated above,
suo motu proceedings have been initiated after a
period of 21 years.
29. Learned advocate, Mr. Satyam Chhaya appearing for
the respondent no.10 in Special Civil Application
No.2919/2014 submitted that it is an admitted
position of fact that during the pendency of the
proceedings, the land in question had been
purchased by the respondent by way of executing
registered sale deed on payment of entire sale
consideration and pursuant to which, entry was
mutated in the revenue record and subsequently
certified also by the competent authority. He
Page 36 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
submitted that the respondent is an agriculturist
by birth and to prove the said fact, sufficient
documents and material have been supplied by the
respondent. He submitted that on the strength of
the execution of the registered sale deed, he had
become absolute owner of the land in question and
cultivating the said land and those facts are well
within the knowledge of the competent revenue
authority, despite the fact that the respondent is
lawful owner and occupant of the said land, the
proceedings have been initiated at the instance of
the revenue authority against the predecessor in
title and at the end of day, passed an order
directing the authority to vest the said land to
the Government and directed the predecessor in
title and the petitioner to vacate the said
premises. He submitted that at the time of
initiation of the proceedings, those particular
facts were well within the knowledge of the
revenue authority that on the date of passing of
the order, the predecessor in title was not at all
in possession of the land and they were not owner,
occupant and in possession of the said land. He
submitted that the respondent no.10 is the main
affecting party and at the time of passing an
order, appropriate opportunity of hearing had not
been provided to them and they have not been
joined in the said proceedings and, therefore, the
said view adopted by the authority concerned is
unjust and illegal. He submitted that so far as
Page 37 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
the issue pertaining to the initiation of the suo
motu proceedings after long period of time, he is
adopting rest of the arguments canvased by learned
advocates of the respective petition in view of
the fact that it is an admitted position of fact
that the revenue authority had initiated
proceedings much belatedly after much lapse of
period and, therefore as per the principle of law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as
this Hon’ble Court, the impugned order may not
sustain for a moment and requires to be quashed
and set aside by allowing the petition.
30. In view of aforesaid submissions canvased by
learned advocates for the parties and having
considered the documents produced on record, it
appears that the dispute is with regard to
cancellation of mutation of entry after long delay
by the revenue authorities exercise of powers
under the provision of the Revenue Code and
passing of an order of eviction from the land on
the ground that the first transaction took place
pursuant to the certificate issued by the
competent authority is in contravention with the
conditions of the certificate, which leads to
breach of the provision of law.
31. It is found out from the facts of the case, one
Vinubhai Mangaldas Shah, who is petitioner of
Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 had applied
for issuance of certificate from the competent
authority and pursuant thereto, the agricultural
Page 38 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
certificate has been issued in favour of Vinubhai
Shah on 30.04.1966 and on the basis of the said
certificate, the said Vinubhai Shah had purchased
land bearing Survey No.115 from the original land
owner, Harijan Muda Rama by way of executing
registered sale deed and pursuant to which, Entry
No.140 came to be mutated in the revenue record on
05.10.1966, which was also certified by the
revenue authority on 09.06.1967. It is found out
that Ramniklal Mangaldas Shah, who is petitioner
of Special Civil Application No.2919/2014 had
purchased land bearing Survey Nos.782 pk., 739,
422, 956, 957 and 958 situated in Village :
Dasada, Surendranagar by way of executing
registered sale deed during the period between
1969 to 1988 and pursuant to the said
transactions, Entry Nos.1350, 1446, 1472 and 2537
came to be mutated in the revenue record. The
Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra issued show cause
notice on 01.12.1984 upon the petitioner under
Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Ordinance,
1949 to show cause as to why the land in question
should not be confiscated and as to why he should
not be evicted from the land in question on the
ground that the though the petitioner is not an
agriculturist, he has purchased the said land in
question and pursuant to issuance of the said
notice, the said Vinubhai Shah had submitted his
detailed reply along with necessary documents
including the registered sale deed for thePage 39 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
purchase of the land after he became the
agriculturist on the basis of the certificate
issued by the Deputy Collector and on the basis of
the reply along with the documents submitted by
the said Vinubhai Shah, the Deputy Collector
dropped the aforesaid proceedings by an order
dated 06.02.1985. Thereafter, the said Vinubhai
Shah had also entered into sale transaction with
one Punjabhai Mithabhai for his land bearing
Survey No.632/1 pk. by way of registered sale deed
and pursuant thereto, Entry No.2396 came to be
mutated in the revenue record in the year 1988-89.
However again despite dropping of the proceedings
as stated above, the Deputy Collector issued show
cause notice upon the said Vinubhai Shah on
10.08.2006 under Section 54 read with Section 75
of the Ordinance, 1949 to show cause as to why the
land bearing Survey No.632/1 pk. should not be
confiscated and as to why he should not be evicted
from the said land, therefore, the said Vinubhai
Shah had again submitted his detailed reply on
21.09.2006 along with all required material and
evidence and after considering the material and
evidence produced by the said Vinubhai Shah along
with the reply, the Deputy Collector, by an order
dated 31.03.2010, had withdrawn the said notice
issued for the land bearing Survey No.632/1 pk.
Not only that, the said Vinubhai Shah had also
purchased other parcels of land including land
bearing Survey Nos.22 & 422 by way of executing
Page 40 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
registered sale deed, out of which, land bearing
Survey No.422 had been purchased by the said
Vinubhai Shah from Ramniklal Shah and entries to
that effect were also mutated in the revenue
record. The said Ramniklal Shah had also sold the
land bearing Survey Nos.956, 957 and 958 to one
Zahiruddin Usmankhanji, who is the respondent
no.10 of Special Civil Application No.2919/2014,
by way of executing registered sale deed and
pursuant to the same, Entry No.4080 came to be
mutated in the revenue record. However
subsequently, a report came to be submitted by the
learned Mamlatdar before the learned Assistant
Collector on 01.11.1987 contending inter alia that
sale transaction, based on which Entry No.2537
dated 01.10.1985, is against the provision of
Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Ordinance,
1949 and on the basis of which, proceedings were
undertaken and by an order dated 31.12.1988,
declaring the aforesaid entries in violation of
the provision of Section 54 of the Ordinance,
1949, it was ordered to evict him from the land in
question, against which, Appeal was preferred
before the learned Collector, who rejected the
said Appeal by an order dated 18.05.1991, against
which, Appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad, who remanded
the matter back before the learned Deputy
Collector for fresh consideration on merits,
however despite remand, by an order dated
Page 41 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
31.12.1998, the request of the petitioner has been
turned down, therefore, Appeal being Gharkhed/Ord/
Appeal Case No.1/2009-10 was preferred before the
learned Collector, who by an order dated
19.12.2009, rejected the said appeal, therefore,
Revision Application was preferred before the
learned SSRD, who rejected it by an order dated
11.05.2011, against which, Special Civil
Application No.2919/2014 has been preferred.
However in the meantime, against the order dated
31.03.2010, whereby the proceedings have been
withdrawn by the revenue authorities, the heirs of
said Punjabhai Mithabhai viz., Govindbhai had
preferred Appeal being Gharkhed Ordinance Appeal
No.3/2010 before the Collector, Surendranagar.
However pending above numbered appeal before the
Collector, the said Vinubhai Shah entered into
sale transaction with one Rajesh Jayantilal Shah,
who is petitioner of Special Civil Application
No.6700/2016 by executing registered sale deed in
his favour on 27.08.2010. However without properly
considering the facts of the case and the
documents available on record, the Collector
allowed the Appeal preferred by the heirs of the
Punjabhai Mithabhai by an order dated 29.09.2011
and thereby ordered that the land bearing Survey
No.632/1 pk. be directed to enter into in the name
of Government. During the interregnum period, the
said Vinubhai Shah had transferred land bearing
Survey Nos.102 pk.2 & 102 pk.3 in favour of his
Page 42 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
daughter and grandson viz., Smitaben Hemendra
Maniyar and Setul Hemendra Maniyar and pursuant
thereto, entry came to be mutated. However being
aggrieved by an order dated 29.09.2011, the said
Rajesh Jayantilal Shah approached the learned SSRD
by filing Revision Application No.MVV/ Gharkhed/
SNR/8/2012, wherein the learned SSRD directed the
parties to maintain status quo, however despite an
order of status quo, the Deputy Collector in
another proceedings being Gharkhed Ordinance Case
No.3/12-13 as well as Gharkhed Ordinance
No.2/2012-13, by an order dated 20.02.2013,
directed the authority concerned to evict Smitaben
Hemendra Maniyar and Setul Hemendra Maniyar from
the land owned by them, against which, Special
Civil Application No.2876/2014 has been preferred.
However, Revision Application No.8/2012 preferred
by the said Rajesh Jayantilal Shah came to be
rejected by the learned SSRD by an order dated
15.02.2016, against which, Special Civil
Application No.6700/2016 has been preferred.
32. Thus having considered the above facts of the
case, it is evident that the basis of initiation
of the proceedings against the mutation of entries
mutated in favour of the petitioner concerned is
on account of the breach committed by the person
concerned while entering into sale transaction,
however, the initiation of those proceedings
affect rights of all the parties to the present
petitions, which resulted into initiation of
Page 43 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
different revenue proceedings, which reached upto
this Hon’ble Court by way of filing aforesaid
three petitions seeking appropriate reliefs as
prayed therein.
33. As can be seen from the facts of the present case,
one of the grounds for initiation of the suo motu
proceeding is that though the petitioner of
Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 is not an
agriculturist, he had purchased land and even he
has not complied with the terms and conditions as
mentioned in the certified issued by the competent
authority. It is to be noted that the said
petitioner had applied for issuance certificate
from the competent authority and pursuant thereto,
the learned Deputy Collector issued certificate
under Section 54(1) read with Rule 18(i) of the
Ordinance, 1949 on 30.04.1966 and on the basis of
the said certificate, the petitioner had entered
into sale transaction and purchased various
parcels of land. However while issuing said
certificate, it is directed that the petitioner
has to purchase land within a period of one year
and before entering into sale transaction, he has
to obtain prior permission from the competent
authority. Thus in the facts of the present case,
the petitioner had entered into sale transaction
and purchased the land within a period of one
year, however admittedly, he has not obtained
prior permission from the competent authority.
Therefore the question, which would fall for
Page 44 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
consideration of this Court is as to whether the
said act on the part of the petitioner can be said
to be alleged breach. Here in the present case,
the petitioner has complied with one condition by
purchasing the land but prior permission had not
been obtained. But it is an admitted position of
fact that the said sale transaction had taken
place in the year 1966 and based on it, entry was
mutated and subsequently certified also.
Thereafter on 01.12.1984, for the very same
transaction, proceeings initiated against the
petitioner by issuing show cause notice to show
cause as to why the land should not be confiscated
and as to why he should not be evicted from the
said land and on receipt of the same, the
petitioner submitted detailed reply accompanying
with relevant documents and considering those set
of documents, the said proceedings were dropped.
Thereafter, the petitioner entered to another
transaction for the land bearing Survey No.632/1
pk. by executing registered sale deed with one
Punjabhai Mithabhai and pursuant thereto, entry
came to be mutated in the revenue record. However
thereafter, the said transaction was also taken
into suo motu by issuing show cause notice on
10.08.2006 to the petitioner to show cause as to
why the said land should not be confiscated and as
to why he should not be evicted from the said
land, to which, detailed reply was submitted by
the petitioner on 21.09.2006 and again considering
Page 45 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
those set of documents, the learned Deputy
Collector had withdrawn the said proceedings by an
order dated 31.03.2010. Thus from the above facts,
it is clear that twice suo motu proceedings were
initiated and once it has been dropped and once it
has been withdrawn, therefore here in the present
case, the principle of res judicate would strictly
applicable to the facts of the case. It is
required to be noted that the doctrine of res
judicata in revenue proceedings is a legal
principle that prevents the reopening of matters
that have been finally decided by a competent
court/ competent revenue authority. The said
principle is codified under Section 11 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, which states that no
court shall try any suit or issue in which the
matter directly and substantially in issue has
been directly and substantially in issue in a
former suit between the same parties, or between
parties under whom they or any of them claim,
litigating under the same title, in a court
competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit
in which such issue has been subsequently raised,
and has been heard and finally decided by such
court. In revenue proceedings, this principle is
applied to ensure that once a matter has been
adjudicated by a revenue court, it cannot be
reopened in a subsequent revenue proceeding. The
said provision of law engrfted in the stattue with
an intent to prevent multiplicity of proceedings
Page 46 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
and to protect parties from being vexed twice for
the same cause. The doctrine of res judicata is a
cornerstone of modern legal systems, ensuring the
finality and consistency of judicial decisions.
Here in the present case on hand, it is admitted
position of fact that twice suo motu proceedings
were initiated by issuing show cause notice upon
the petitioners, to which, detailed reply was
submitted and considering those set of documents,
the said proceedings were once dropped and once
withdrawn and, thereafter, just because of
challenge to the said proceeding by the heirs of
the original land owners, who has nothing to do
with land after pocketing money (amount of sale
consideration) by their father, the proceedings
have been initiated, therefore in my considered
opinion, same cannot be initiated, that too, after
long period of time, which is not permissible in
view of the various judicial pronouncements of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble
Court.
34. So far as the petitioner of Special Civil
Application No.2919/2014 viz., Ramniklal Mangaldas
Shah, against whom also suo motu proceedings have
been initiated, is concerned, the said petitioner
had purchased land bearing Survey No.422 from the
petitioner of Special Civil Application
No.2876/2014 viz., Vinubhai Shah and as the
proceeding against the said Vinubhai Shah had
initiated, against the petitioner, Ramniklal Shah,
Page 47 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
the suo motu proceedings have been initiated. It
is, however, required to be noted that basis for
initiation of proceedings against the said
Vinubhai Shah is that he has not complied with the
conditions imposed by the authority while issuing
certificate and on the ground that he is not an
agriculturist. However if the facts of the present
case are examined then, it is evident that the
said Ramniklal Shah is an agriculturist as earlier
also, he has purchased various parcel of land by
way of executing registered sale deed and he is
the bonafide purchaser of the land in question. It
is to be noted that as stated above, earlier
against the said Vinubhai Shah, twice the
proceedings have been initiated and despite
dropping and/or withdrawal of those proceedings,
again the proceedings have been initiated and as I
have said earlier, it is not permissible,
therefore, the initiation of the proceedings
against the petitioner is against the settled law
as the principle of res judicata would apply as
stated above.
35. At this stage, submission made by learned
advocate, Mr. Amin contending that as to who can
be said to be aggrieved party, is also required to
be considered. It is to be noted that here in the
present case, as stated above, twice the
proceedings were initiated and, thereafter, once
it has been dropped and once it has been withdrawn
and, thereafter, heirs of the original owner,
Page 48 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
Punjabhai Mithabhai, from whom the said Vinubhai
Shah had purchased the land in question, had
challenged the order of withdrawal of the
proceedings, wherein the order came to be passed,
which affects the rights of all the parties.
Admittedly, the heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhai had
nothing to do with dropping and/or withdrawal of
the proceedings against the said Vinubhai Shah in
view of the fact that the said Punjabhai Mithabhai
had already sold out the land to the said Vinubhai
Shah and pocketed entire sale consideration. It is
the case of the heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhai that
the land had been taken away by the said Vinubhai
Shah by playing fraud with them, therefore in my
considered opinion, they cannot be said to be
aggrieved party because till date, the said sale
deed has not been challenged. In this regard, I
would like to refer to and rely upon the decision
of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, upon
which reliance has been placed by learned
advocate, Mr. Amin, in case of Navuji Lalji
Vaghela (supra), wherein it has been observed as
under,
“………………………… the party aggrieved must show
that any of his fundamental rights or any
other legal rights have been infringed and
thereby the party is aggrieved by such
infringement.
36. In the aforesaid decision, it is further observed
as under,
“We have been consistently noticing that many
Page 49 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
persons like the present appellants have
started abusing the process of law and have
started taking advantage of such proceedings,
more particularly, in land matters. After
entering into a transaction with eyes wide
open, knowing fully well that the transaction
is in breach of the provisions of the Tenancy
Act and after pocketing huge amount when the
transaction is declared invalid and
subsequently if the purchaser succeeds, the
original owner would come before the Court
saying that the transaction be declared
invalid. Such parties need to be deprecated.”
37. At this stage, I would like to refer to and rely
upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra), upon
which reliance has been placed by learned
advocate, Mr. Amin, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed as under,
“7. It is a settled legal proposition that a
stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any
proceeding, unless he satisfies the
Authority/Court, that he falls within the
category of aggrieved persons.
Only a person who has suffered, or suffers
from legal injury can challenge the
act/action/order etc. in a court of law.”
38. In view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court, it is
evident that an aggrieved party is typically
defined as someone who has suffered a legal injury
Page 50 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
or deprivation of a right, enabling them to seek
redress through legal channels. In a decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of A. Subash
Babu Vs. State of A.P. & Anr., reported in (2011)
7 SCC 616, it has been observed as under:-
“The expression ‘aggrieved person’ denotes an
elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be
confined that the bounds of a rigid, exact
and comprehensive definition. Its scope and
meaning depends on diverse, variable factors
such as the content and intent of the statute
of which contravention is alleged, the
specific circumstances of the case, the
nature and extent of the complainant’s
interest and the nature and extent of the
prejudice or injuries suffered by him.”
39. Further, the expression ‘person aggrieved’ does
not include a person who suffers from a
psychological or an imaginary injury; a person
aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one,
whose right or interest has been adversely
affected or jeopardized. Aforesaid aspect has been
considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a
decisions in case of Shanti Kumar R. Canji Vs.
Home Insurance Co. of New York, reported in (1974)
2 SCC 387.
40. Therefore applying the above tests, I am of the
considered opinion that heirs of Punjabhai
Mithabhai cannot be said to be aggrieved persons
in view of the fact that the said Punjabhai
Mithabhai had already sold the land to Vinubhai
Page 51 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
Shah and pocketed entire sale consideration and
from that day itself, his rights in the said land
was over and the initiation of the suo motu
proceedings against the said Vinubhai Shah was on
the ground of breach of conditions, wherein the
said Punjabhai Mithabhai has nothing to do,
therefore, there was no reason for the heirs of
Punjabhai Mithabhi to challenge the order of
withdrawal of the proceedings against the said
Vinubhai Mithabhai.
41. At this state, I would like to refer to and rely
upon the decision of this Hon’ble Court in case of
Bharatbhai Naranbhai Vegda (supra), upon which
reliance has been placed by learned Senior
Counsel, Mr. Naik, wherein this Hon’ble Court has
considered the aspect that after pocketing amount
by the original land owner, his heirs had come
forward claiming their right in the land after sad
demise of their father and such contention raised
by the person concerned has been deprecated by
this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid decision.
Relevant observations made by this Hon’ble Court
in the aforesaid decision read as under,
“16. Examining the matter further, it appears that
it is an admitted position that the father of
the respondent no.5 after having accepted the
consideration, has executed the sale deed and
during his life time, he did not raise any
grievance for the validity of the transaction
nor did he contend that he was under a
mistaken belief at the time when the sale
Page 52 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
deed was executed, but now having realised
the said mistake, he is ready to return the
consideration. Further, respondent no.5 has
also filed Civil Suits after death of his
father which are pending in the Civil Court
where the rights of the parties are yet to be
examined. Under these circumstances, it can
be said that when the respondent no.5
originated the Government machinery, the
bonafide would be lacking since one who is a
party to the transaction cannot be heard to
say at a later stage that the transaction is
not valid that too after a period of about
more than 35 years. In any case, respondent
no.5 had moved the authority and the impugned
action of issuance of show-cause notice has
been taken, but when the Court considers the
aspect of reasonable period and finds that
the exercise of the jurisdiction was barred
by delay and the consequential action could
be said as without jurisdiction, the question
of locus on the part of respondent no.5 may
not assume much importance.
17. We may also record that by the impugned
notice, the petitioners are called upon to
show cause not only for invalidating the
transaction under section 54 of the
Ordinance, but the further action is also
contemplated under section 75, not only for
eviction, but to resume the land by the State
Government. As per the respondent no.5, the
authority had no such power to resume back
Page 53 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
the said land and as per Mr.Kavina, in view
of the similar provision made under the
provisions of Bombay Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1947 and the interpretation thereof by
this Court, in the decision reported in the
case of Govindsingh Ramsinghbhai Vaghela v.
G. Subbarao, Asstt. Collector Dholka reported
at 1970 GLR 897, the original owner would be
entitled to get back the land and not the
vesting thereof in the State Government.
18. Section 75 of the ordinance provides for the
enabling power of summary eviction by the
Collector. There are no express powers for
forfeiture by the State Government nor there
is any express power for re-entrustment of
the land to the original owner. If the
provisions of section 75 are considered with
the provisions of section 84C of the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948,
whenever the legislature wanted, it provided
for the entrustment of the land to the
transferor or the forfeiture thereof by the
State Government. Such is not the language
used in section 75 of the Act.”
42. Therefore considering the above observations made
by this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid decision,
if the facts of the present case are examined, in
that event, it is found out that here in the
present case, Punjabhai Mithabhai, who is the
original land owner, had already sold out the land
Page 54 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
to Vinubhai Shah and thus, he had received entire
sale consideration and he had never raised any
dispute in this regard, however here in the
present case on hand, as noted above, because of
challenge to the order of withdrawal of the
proceedings against the said Vinubhai Shah, the
heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhai had challenged the
said order, wherein the order came to be passed
against the petitioners of above writ petitions.
Over and above that, if any order, that might have
been passed related to the land purchased by the
said Vinubhai Shah and subsequently purchased by
Ramniklal Shah, would not prejudicially affect any
of his rights, which would entitle him to take
appropriate recourse. Therefore considering the
above facts of the case, I am of the considered
opinion that the heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhai has
no locus to challenge the order as he cannot be
said to be aggrieved party.
43. One of the contentions raised by learned AGP Mr.
Trivedi with regard to the efficacious remedy
available for the petitioner of Special Civil
Application No.2876/2014 contending inter alia
that the order of the learned Collector has been
directly challenged before this Hon’ble Court by
filing said writ petition despite the fact that
the said order ought to have been challenged
before the leaned SSRD, is also required to be
considered. In this regard, it is to be noted that
there is no dispute about the fact that the order
Page 55 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
of learned Collector has been challenged by the
petitioner before this Hon’ble Court directly
instead of challenging it before the learned SSRD.
However if the facts of the present case, as noted
above, are examined, in that event, it is found
out that it is an admitted position of fact that
against the said petitioner, twice suo motu
proceedings were initiated by the revenue
authorities, however once it has been dropped and
once it has been withdrawn and the said order of
withdrawal of the proceeding has been challenged
by the heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhai, who has no
locus and in the said proceedings, an order came
to be passed affecting the rights of the
petitioner, therefore, the fundamental rights of
the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution
of India have been violated. The exceptions to
the “rule of alternate remedy” are well laid out
in terms of judicial precedents and would include
situations where the statutory authority has not
acted in accordance with the provisions of law or
acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of
judicial procedure; or where an order has been
passed in violation of the principles of natural
justice.
44. The exceptions to the ‘rule of alternate remedy’
were considered in the case of Whirlpool
Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, reported
in (1998) 8 SCC 1, wherein it was observed as
follows :-
Page 56 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
“14. The power to issue prerogative writs under
Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in
nature and is not limited by any other
provision of the Constitution. This power can
be exercised by the High Court not only for
issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari for the enforcement of any of the
Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of
the Constitution but also for “any other
purpose”.
15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
High Court, having regard to the facts of the
case, has a discretion to entertain or not to
entertain a writ petition. But the High Court
has imposed upon itself certain restrictions
one of which is that if an effective and
efficacious remedy is available, the High
Court would not normally exercise its
jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has
been consistently held by this Court not to
operate as a bar in at least three
contingencies, namely, where the writ
petition has been filed for the enforcement
of any of the Fundamental Rights or where
there has been a violation of the principle
of natural justice or where the order or
proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction
or the vires of an Act is challenged. There
is a plethora of case-law on this point but
to cut down this circle of forensic
whirlpool, we would rely on some oldPage 57 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
decisions of the evolutionary era of the
constitutional law as they still hold the
field.”
45. Following the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in another decision in case of
Harbanslal Sahnia Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 has observed as
under,
“7. So far as the view taken by the High Court
that the remedy by way of recourse to
arbitration clause was available to the
appellants and therefore the writ petition
filed by the appellants was liable to be
dismissed is concerned, suffice it to observe
that the rule of exclusion of writ
jurisdiction by availability of an
alternative remedy is a rule of discretion
and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate
case, in spite of availability of the
alternative remedy, the High Court may still
exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least
three contingencies : (i) where the writ
petition seeks enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights; (ii) where there is
failure of principles of natural justice; or
(iii) where the orders or proceedings are
wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of
an Act is challenged. (See Whirlpool Corpn.
v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1.
The present case attracts applicability of
the first two contingencies. Moreover, as
Page 58 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
noted, the petitioners’ dealership, which is
their bread and butter, came to be terminated
for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In
such circumstances, we feel that the
appellants should have been allowed relief by
the High Court itself instead of driving them
to the need of initiating arbitration
proceedings.”
46. The ‘rule of alternate remedy’ in the context of
maintainability of a writ petition under Article
226 has been examined in a recent decision in the
case of Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2021) 6 SCC
771 and it has been held that since the power
under Article 226 to issue writs can be exercised
not only for enforcement of fundamental rights but
for any other purpose as well, the High Court has
the discretion not to entertain a writ petition
and one of the restrictions placed on the power of
the High Court is where an effective alternate
remedy is available to the aggrieved person.
47. The rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies has
been held to be a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion and existence of an alternate remedy
would not divest the High Court of its powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
which may be exercised in appropriate cases.
Having regard to the foregoing discussion, it
appears that much water has since flown beneath
the bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect
on these decisions which, though old, continue to
Page 59 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
hold the field with the result that law as to the
jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, in spite of the alternative
statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in
a case where the authority against whom the writ
is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or
had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any
legal foundation. Over and abvoe that, the
petition is of the year 2014 and we are in the
year 2026, therefore after much period, the
petitioner cannot be relegated to avail
alternative remedy.
48. So far as the contention raised by learned AGP
contending that the petitioner of Special Civil
Application No.2876/2014 has also sought relief in
favour of his daughter and grandson, against whom
an order of eviction has been passed, without
joining them as party petitioner is also required
to be considered. Admittedly suo motu proceedings
were initiated on the ground of breach of
conditions, wherein the daughter and grandson son
of the said petitioner were party to the said
proceedings but those proceedings have been either
dropped or withdrawn by the revenue authority qua
Vinubhai Shah. Admittedly, it is found out from
the record that suo motu proceedings have been
initiated at the instance of the Deputy Collector
under the provision of the Ordinance, 1945,
wherein the daughter and grandson of the
Page 60 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
petitioner were party in the proceedings and order
to the effect that they should be evicted from the
land and their names are required to be deleted by
vesting the said land to the Government and being
aggrieved by the said order, all three parties
have approached the Collector, however during the
pendency of those proceedings, present petition is
filed by the petitioner without joining them in
the present proceedings knowingfully well that the
daughter and grandson are aggrieved party and
because of issuance of notice by this Hon’ble
Court in the matter, the concerned authority had
terminated those proceedings by assigning
specially reasons that based upon the same set of
documents, the petition is filed, wherein notice
has been issued, therefore, the said order is
subject to final outcome of the said petition.
Therefore in view of the above facts of the case,
I have found substance in the arguments canvased
by learned AGP.
49. Learned AGP has empathetically submitted that so
far as the observations made by the Deputy
Collector in suo motu proceedings related to land
bearing Survey No.422 are concerned, those
proceedings have attained finality as Vinubhai
Shah and/or Ramniklal Shah had not challenged the
said order before any higher authority and the
order of the Deputy Collector had been challenged
by the legal heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhai by
filing appeal and their appeal had been allowed by
Page 61 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
the Collector and subsequently the said order is
also confirmed by the learned SSRD. In short, in
the revenue proceedings, adverse order passed
against Vinubhai Shah and Ramniklal Shah had
already attained finality, therefore in the
present proceedings, writ petition preferred at
the instance of the petitioner is not required to
be entertained, therefore considering the above
fact, prima facie it seems that there is substance
in the arguments canvased by learned AGP. A
conjoint reading of all the proceedings, it is
found out that in fact, the revenue authority had
initiated different proceedings against both
brothers essentially on the ground of breach of
the condition under Section 54 read with Section
75 of the Ordinance, 1945. The petitioner of
Special Civil Application No.2919/2014, Ramniklal
Shah was aggrieved and decided to question the
decision delivered by the authority concerned by
way of filing Appeal before the Collector and the
said Appeal was dismissed, therefore, the said
order was challenged before the learned SSRD and
the reliefs sought for in those proceedings
crystallize the position of fact that in separate
proceedings, the revenue authority has also taken
decision to cancel the said entry mutated and
subsequently certified in the name of Ramniklal
Shah. The said writ petition preferred by the said
petitioner has been considered by this Court and
had come to a conclusion that the suo motu
Page 62 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
proceedings have been initiated after many years.
Therefore considering the above aspects of the
matter, there is no substance in the arguments
canvased by learned AGP and is not required to be
entertained at this juncture.
50. Now the last submission canvased by learned
advocates appearing for the petitioners in
respective matters with regard to initiation of
the suo motu proceedings after much delay is also
required to be considered. So far as the aspect of
delay in initiation of the revision proceedings is
concerned, the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v.
Patel Raghav Natha reported in AIR 1969 SC 129
would be squarely applicable to the present case.
It is an admitted position of fact that there has
been a delay of 21 years in the exercise of
revisional powers under Section 211 of the BLRC by
the Collector. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a
judgment in case of Raghav Natha (supra) has made
the observation that even if such transactions
have restrictions or a statutory restrictions,
exercise of power has to be within a reasonable
period. The observations made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the said decision are as under,
“12. It seems to us that sec. 65 itself indicates
the length of the reasonable time within
which the Commissioner must act u/s. 211.
u/s. 65 of the Code if the Collector does not
inform the applicant of his decision on the
application within a period of three months
Page 63 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
the permission applied for shall be deemed to
have been granted. This section shows that a
period of three months is considered ample
for the Collector to make up his mind and
beyond that the legislature thinks that the
matter is so urgent that permission shall be
deemed to have been granted. Reading Ss. 211
and 65 together it seems to us that the
Commissioner must exercise his revisional
powers within a few months of the order of
the Collector. This is reasonable time
because after the grant of the permission for
building purposes the occupant is likely to
spend money on starting building operations
at least within a few months from the date of
the permission. In this case the Commissioner
set aside the order of the Collector on
12.10.1961, i.e., more than a year after the
order, and it seems to us that this order was
passed too late.
51. The aforesaid view has been reiterated time and
again in catena of judicial pronouncements
including the another judgment of the Hon’ble
Surpeme Court in case of Joseph Severance v/s
Benny Mathew reported in (2005) 7 SCC 667.
Thereafter it has been reiterated by the Division
Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case of Chandulal
Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat &
Ors., reported in (2013) 2 GLR 1788, wherein it
has been observed:
“It must be fairly said that if the statue
Page 64 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
does not prescribe time limit for exercise of
revisional powers, it does not mean that such
powers can be exercised at any point of time
even if there is a breach of Section 43 of
the Act, which is a provision which relates
to a new tenure land, rather it should be
exercised within a reasonable period of time.
It is so because the law does not expect a
settled thing to be unsettled after a long
lapse of time. It is clear from various
judgments of the Supreme Court that where a
statutory provision for exercise of any suo
motu powers of revision does not prescribe
any limitation, the powers must be exercised
within a reasonable period of time even in
the case of transaction which would be termed
as void transaction.”
[emphasis supplied]
52. At this stage, a useful reference can be made to
the decision of the Division Bench of this Court
in case of Hussainbhai Satarbhai Meman (supra),
upon which reliance has been placed by learned
advocate, Mr. Amin, wherein the Division Bench of
this Hon’ble Court has considered the well-known
decision of Raghav Natha (supra) as well as other
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard
to the initiation of the suo motu proceedings
after much delay and considering those decision,
it has been observed as under,
“102 A bare reading of the said provision
indicates that it confers powers upon the
Page 65 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
Collector to deal with such properties which
are not the properties of the individuals or
of aggregates of persons legally capable of
holding the property. We may note that with
the summary eviction of the tranferee under
Section 75 of the Ordinance’ 1949, though
sale deeds in his favour can be held to be
invalid, but it does not result in extinction
of the right of the vendor or owner in the
property-in-question. Though there is no
provision for restoration of the land to the
vendor, but the provisions does not
contemplate divesting of the title of the
vendor. So the words which are not the
property of individuals or of aggregates of
persons legally capable of holding the
property cannot attract. No declaration of
the property-in-question being the State
property can be made with the aid of Section
37 of the Revenue Code, 1979 and the
Collector has no power to take possession of
the lands subject matter of sale and dispose
of the same under Section 37 of the Land
Revenue Code, 1979.
117 It may be noted from the law discussed above
pertaining to the reasonable time for
exercise of suo motu action, that the
legislature in its wisdom did not fix the
time limit for exercise of summary eviction,
however, it does not mean that the
legislature intended to leave the action
under the Act for an indefinite period of
Page 66 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
time, inasmuch as, it would have an effect of
rendering title of the land
holders/transferees in a state of perpetual
uncertainty. The Court has to construe the
statutory provisions in a way which makes the
provision workable advancing the purpose and
object of the enactment of the statute
(reference be made to paragraph No. ’28’ of
the decision of the Apex Court in Sulochana
Chandrakant Galande).
123 The said case arose out of the proceedings
initiated under Section 84C of the Tenancy
Act, 1948 on the premise that the sale
transactions of the year 1970 was hit by the
provisions of Section 63 of the said Act. The
appeal filed by the transferor, i.e. the
original owner seeking for a declaration of
transaction of the year 1970 as invalid and
restoration of possession of the property in
his favour was dismissed by the Division
Bench noticing that legality and the validity
of the transaction cannot be looked as power
in suo motu review was exercised after
unreasonable period of time.
128 At the cost of repetition, it may be
reiterated that a declaration of the sale
deed as invalid was required to be made after
an inquiry which must have been conducted
within a reasonable time before the Summary
eviction. The sale deeds remained valid for
considerable long period of time and
moreover, they are binding on the vendors.
Page 67 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined The inquiry into the status of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners or the petitioners herein after such a long
lapse of time, can not be permitted, as it
may not be possible to bring on record all
the relevant documents in such an inquiry(s).
A transaction hit by Section 54 is not void
ab initio, but may be invalidated and hence
remains valid till it is declared invalid.
The settled position of law that the
transaction which remained valid and
effective for a considerable period of time
cannot be unsettled, is not to be deviated.
Further, there is no vesting contemplated
under the Ordinance, 1949 and as noted
hereinbefore, the show cause notices are
prescribing for not only eviction of the
transferees, but resumption of the land in
favour of the State Government by directing
for entry of the name of the State in the
revenue records after deletion of the
entries, even of the original landholders
while deleting the name of the transferees,
which is wholly without jurisdiction.”
53. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, it
can be said that the suo motu powers are required
to be exercised within reasonable time. In the
present case, as observed hereinabove, the suo
motu proceedings were initiated by the Collector
after a period of approximately 21 years by
Page 68 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
issuing show cause notice upon the petitioner,
therefore, the suo motu proceedings were not
initiated within reasonable period. Therefore in
view of the above facts of the case, I am of the
considered opinion that when the suo motu
proceedings were initiated after a delay of more
than 21 years, the impugned orders passed by the
revenue authorities are required to be quashed and
set aside.
54. In view of the aforesaid discussions, Special
Civil Application No.2876/2014 is partly allowed.
The order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the
Collector, Surendranagar in Gharkhed Ordinance
Appeal No.31/2010 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Whereas the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the
Deputy Collector, Patadi in Gharkhed Ordinance
Case No.3/12-13 and the order dated 20.02.2013
passed by the Deputy Collector, Patadi in Gharkhed
Ordinance Case No.2/12-13 issuing direction for
eviction of Smitaben Hemendra Maniyar and Setul
Hemendra Maniyar, who are the daughter and
grandson of the petitioner respectively are not
disturbed in view of the discussions made
hereinabove. However, it is open for Smitaben
Hemendra Maniyar and Setul Hemendra Maniyar to
take appropriate legal recourse available under
the law. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Direct service is permitted.
55. Accordingly, Special Civil Application
No.2919/2014 is allowed. The impugned order dated
Page 69 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
13.05.2011 passed by the learned Secretary
(Appeals) vide order No.MVV/Ghatkhed/SNR/2/2010
and the order dated 19.12.2009 passed by the
Collector, Surendranagar and order dated
09.06.2009 passed by the Deputy Collector,
Dhrangdhra are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule
is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
56. Simultaneously, Special Civil Application
No.6700/2016 is allowed. The impugned order dated
15.02.2016 passed by learned Special Secretary
(Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision
Application No.8 of 2012 is hereby quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is
permitted.
57. Connected application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
Page 70 of 70
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:53:48 IST 2026
