Gujarat High Court
Mayank Rameshbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 9 June, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/670/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 670 of 2025
In
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 731 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 670 of 2025
==========================================================
MAYANK RAMESHBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHRUV K DAVE(6928) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR YASH J PATEL(11240) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1,2,3,4
MR JIGAR P RAVAL(2008) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6,7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 09/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. This is a wholly misconceived appeal filed against the judgement and order date 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition whereby the recall application filed by the respondent seeking for recall of the judgement and order dated 22.01.2025, passed in Special Civil Application No. 421 of 2025 has been disposed of with the observation that the original petitioner has misled this Court in passing the judgement and order dated 22.01.2025. By means of the order dated 22.01.2025 this Court had directed the Deputy Collector, Vadodara city to decide a representation preferred by the original petitioner dated Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by EZHURHASSAN SUDHIR ACHUTHAN(HC00192) on Tue Jun 17 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 23:12:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/670/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2025 undefined 17/19.02.2024. The observation in the order impugned relevant to note at the moment, are that the writ petition was filed with an innocuous prayer to issue a mandamus to decide the representation preferred by the original petitioner dated 17/19.02.2024, more particularly to rectify the Mutation entry No.2162 dated 21.11.1984.
2. It was noted by the learned Single Judge that the said Revenue entry was subject matter of scrutiny before the revenue authorities and by an order dated 13.04.2005 passed by the Additional Secretary, in Revision Application No.62 of 2003, the Revenue entry No.2162 was set aside. In Special Civil Application No. 15105 of 2005, vide judgement and order dated 19.09.2005, this Court had set aside the order passed by the Additional Secretary dated 13.04.2005 and restored the Revenue entry with the observation made in the order as under:-
"[i] The judgment and order passed by the Additional Secretary dated 13.4.2005 passed in Revision Application No.62 of 2003 is quashed and set aside and the Entry No.2162 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.658 situated at village Sevasi of Taluka -Vadodara is hereby restored. However, the Revenue Authority is directed to make an additional entry in the revenue record that the said entry is subject to the ultimate outcome of the Regular Civil Suit No.1814 of 1995 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara. The parties to abide by the ultimate outcome of Regular Civil Suit No.1814 of 1995 and necessary entry can be modified on the basis of the judgement and decree that may be passed by the learned Civil Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by EZHURHASSAN SUDHIR ACHUTHAN(HC00192) on Tue Jun 17 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 23:12:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/670/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2025 undefined Judge (SD), Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No.1814 of 1995.
[ii] As agreed by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties, the parties to the present proceeding are directed to maintain status quo till the decision in Regular Civil Suit No.1814 of 1995 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara.
[iii] The learned Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara and /or the trial court before whom the aforesaid suit is pending, is directed to decide and dispose of the aforesaid R.C.S. No.1814 of 1995 as early as possible and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order."
3. It is, thus, noted by the learned Single Judge that the plain reading of the above directions revealed that in addition to the setting aside of the order dated 13.04.2005 canceling the Revenue entry No.2162 dated 21.11.1984, the learned Single Judge in the previous writ petition had directed the Revenue authorities to make an additional entry in the Revenue record inter alia stating that the Entry No.2162 would be subject to the final outcome of the Regular Civil Suit No.1814 of 1995 pending in the Court of Civil Judge(Senior Division), Vadodara. This Court has also observed that the parties would abide by the ultimate outcome of the said Civil Suit and that the parties shall maintain the status quo and that the said direction was with the consensus of the parties.
4. The father of the original petitioner herein was party to Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by EZHURHASSAN SUDHIR ACHUTHAN(HC00192) on Tue Jun 17 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 23:12:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/670/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2025 undefined the proceedings conducted in the Special Civil Application No. 15105 of 2005. It is, thus, evident that the writ petition filed by the original petitioner/ appellant herein, namely Special Civil Application No. 421 of 2025 with the details given in Paragraph No.'3.8' of the writ petition as noted in Paragraph No.'7' of the judgement was an effort to mislead this Court into getting an order by concealment of the material facts. The effort of the petitioner which fructified in getting the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Court in issuing directions to the Deputy Collector, Vadodara to decide the representation preferred by the original petitioner dated 17/19.02.2024, was deliberate to mislead the Court by the concealment of material facts.
5. As we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the recall application and imposing cost amounting to Rs.5 lakhs upon the petitioner, we find it fit to dismiss the present appeal, with an additional cost of Rs.5 lakhs for filing the present appeal which is the second round of litigation resulting into misuse of the process of law and wastage of the precious judicial time of this Court.
6. The cost so imposed shall be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee within the period of four weeks from today, failing which appropriate proceedings for recovery thereof shall be initiated.
Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by EZHURHASSAN SUDHIR ACHUTHAN(HC00192) on Tue Jun 17 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 23:12:51 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/670/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2025 undefined
7. With the above, the appeal stands dismissed being misconceived. Consequently, connected Civil Application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) SUDHIR Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by EZHURHASSAN SUDHIR ACHUTHAN(HC00192) on Tue Jun 17 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 23:12:51 IST 2025