Gujarat High Court
Karsandas Mohanlal Patel vs Dr. C. M Parmar, Deputy Collector, ... on 7 August, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1874/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 1874 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11964 of 2022
==========================================================
KARSANDAS MOHANLAL PATEL
Versus
DR. C. M PARMAR, DEPUTY COLLECTOR, RAJKOT CITY PRANT-1
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADITYA A GUPTA(7875) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHURVE AGP for the Respondent No.1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) By way of this application, the applicant seeks initiation of the contempt proceedings for willful breach of the judgment and order dated 27/07/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned SCA No.11964 of 2022 as well as the order dated 08/05/2014 passed in SCA No.5464 of 2014.
2. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 27/07/2023 in SCA No.11964 of 2022 has placed reliance upon the order dated 08/05/2014 passed in SCA No.5464 of 2014 and has incorporated the observations made in SCA No.5464 of 2014 and ultimately in paragraph No.8 directions were issued to the respondent No.2 to follow the mandate of the provisions of Sections 135 C and 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:08:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1874/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined
3. By placing reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of E.I. Dupont India (P.) Ltd., vs Union of India 2014 (305) ELT 282 (Guj), it is submitted that the respondents - authorities were supposed to comply with the directions issued in the order dated 08/05/2014 in SCA No.5464 of 2014 on which the reliance is placed by the learned Single Judge.
4. It is contended by the learned advocate for the applicant that after the aforesaid order was passed, the respondents was supposed to mutate the entry in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale-deed. However, due to some other technical defect, the respondent did not comply with the directions issued by this Court. It is submitted that the Deputy Collector dismissed the application filed by the applicant vide order dated 09/05/2025 for mutating the entry of registered sale-deed in the revenue record on the ground that there is a mismatch in the measurement of the land and the name of the sellers and purchasers are not matched in the revenue record. Thus, it is submitted that the said order is in direct conflict with the order dated 27/07/2023 passed in the captioned petition and the order dated 08/05/2014 passed in SCA No.5464 of 2014. It is submitted that as per the settled legal precedent, the respondent is supposed to mutate the entry on his own of this registered sale-deed and, hence by not doing so, they have committed the Contempt of Courts.
5. At this stage, we may refer to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.8 of the captioned petition which is quoted herein below.
"8. In view of aforesaid observations, the present Special Civil Application is allowed. The order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 Mamlatdar, Rajkot City(East) is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.2 Mamlatdar is directed to follow the mandate of the provisions of Sections Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:08:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1874/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined 135C and 135D of Bombay Land Revenue Code in respect of the application of the petitioner for mutation of name and decide the same in accordance with the said provisions within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Special Civil Application is disposed of accordingly."
6. After the aforesaid order was passed, the applicant made an application and accordingly, by the order dated 30/12/2023, the competent authority on the objections raised by one Jayaben Pragjibhia Undhad and others while examining the provisions of Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, which pertains to the Register Of Mutations and Register of Disputed Cases, passed a comprehensive order and rejected such application. Accordingly, the applicant filed an appeal before the Collector, Rajkot on 20/02/2025. Ultimately, the appeal of the applicant was partly allowed, which was further subject matter of challenge by the objector before the Prant Officer and by the order dated 09/05/2025, the Prant Officer passed the order. While passing the order in paragraph No.4.5 it was observed that as per the directions issued by this Court in SCA No.11964 of 2022, he has followed the provisions of Section 135C and 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
7. Thus, after the aforesaid order was passed by the learned Single Judge, there were subsequent proceedings initiated between the objectors and the present applicant and ultimately the same culminated into the order dated 09/05/2025 passed by the Prant Officer.
8. We do not find that there is any infringement of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the orders passed by the respondents-authorities. There cannot be cavil on the proposition of law as enunciated by the Divison Bench of this Court in the case of E.I. Dupont India (P.) Ltd., (supra) however the same cannot be applied to the facts of the case, more particularly the learned Single Judge after Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:08:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1874/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined considering the order dated 08/05/2014 passed in SCA No.5463 of 2014 in the matter of other litigants not involving the present applicant has issued directions in paragraph No.8.
9. Thus, we do not find that there is any willful or deliberate defiance of the directions issued by this Court. The present contempt application is rejected.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) sompura / 26 Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:08:44 IST 2025