Gujarat High Court
Mer Champaben Jadavbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 25 November, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7361 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
MER CHAMPABEN JADAVBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MS SONAL D VYAS(999) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents.
2. By way of present petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:
"A. YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO issue writ of certiorari Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:54:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined and/or writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.08.2018 passed below GHRKH/BVN/2/2015 at Annexure-1.
B. Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this present petition, the respondents may be restrained from interfering with the possession of the land situated at revenue survey No.30 at Village :
Karkolia, Ta. Sihor, District : Bhavnagar. C. Such other and further relief/s which the Honourable Court may deem fit, just and proper be granted in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice."
3. Heard Ms. Sonal D. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the respondents authorities.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased the land bearing Survey No.30, admeasuring 4 Acre
- 25 Guntha at Village : Karkolia, Ta. Shihor, District :
Bhavnagar from the respondent No.3 by way of a registered sale deed dated 13.11.1995. The registered sale deed was given effect in the revenue record by mutation entry No.540 duly certified on 18.01.1996. Copies of extract of the revenue record of Survey No.30 are duly produced at Annexure - B to the petition.
4.1 The respondent No.2 initiated proceedings under Section 75 read with Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:54:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined Agricultural Lands Settlement Ordinance, 1949 (for short 'the Gharkhed Ordinance') on 04.08.2004 on the ground that the petitioner was not an agriculturist when the land-in-question was purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the respondent No.2 and stated that the petitioner is the daughter of an agriculturist, who is holding land at Village :
Vadekhan, Taluka : Lakhtar, District : Surendranagar. That, the petitioner's name was entered as legal heirs and representative of her father Jadavbhai @ Jadubhai Mohanbhai and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not an agriculturist. A copy of extract of 7/12 record of Survey No.1/24 at Village : Vadekhan, Taluka : Lakhtar, District : Surendranagar is duly produced at Annexure - C to the petition.
4.2 In-spite of the availability of the revenue record, the respondent No.2 ordered to evict the petitioner from the land-
in-question on account of breach of Section 54 of the Gharkhed Ordinance in exercise of powers under Section 75 of the Ordinance and further ordered to take possession of the land- in-question and confiscate the land by order dated 18.10.2010. A copy of the said order is duly produced at Annexure - D to Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:54:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined the petition.
4.3 The petitioner approached the learned SSRD challenging the order passed by the Collector by way of Revision Application No.62 of 2011 wherein, the learned SSRD by order dated 21.06.2013, partly allowed the Revision Application remanding the matter back to the Collector, Bhavnagar, the respondent No.2 herein. A copy of the said order dated 21.06.2013 is duly produced at Annexure - F to the petition. 4.4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned SSRD, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.18280 of 2013. The said petition came to be disposed of by order dated 15.09.2014 reserving the liberty in favour of the petitioner to file appropriate application before the concerned authority, the respondent No.3 herein.
4.5 Pursuant to the said order dated 15.09.2014, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No.2 of 2015 along with an application for condonation of delay. Learned SSRD by order dated 30.08.2018 rejected the Revision Application on the ground of delay of 4 years in approaching the respondent authority. It was held that the petitioner challenged the order Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:54:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined passed by the Collector, dated 18.10.2010 on 24.03.2015, the same was barred by delay of four years. The said order dated 30.08.2018 passed in No.MVV/GHRKH/BVN/2/2015 by the learned SSRD has given rise to the filing of the present petition.
5. Ms. Sonal D. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner relied on the facts, as referred to herein above, and submitted that the learned SSRD has committed an error in rejecting the Revision Application of the petitioner on the ground of delay. Referring to the facts, as referred to herein above, Ms. Vyas, learned advocate submitted that the petitioner herein had preferred Special Civil Application No.18280 of 2013 wherein, by order dated 15.09.2014, liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioner to make appropriate application before the competent authority and in view thereof, the petitioner preferred the Revision Application within a period of three months from the date of the said order and therefore, the learned SSRD erred in rejecting the Revision Application of the petitioner being No.2 of 2015. It is submitted that the petitioner had raised several contentions by way of written arguments in the earlier proceedings, which were not Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:54:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined considered by the learned SSRD, when the Revision Application of the petitioner being No.MVV/GHARKH/BVN/62/2011 challenging the order passed by the Collector, dated 18.10.2010 was rejected without considering the contentions of the petitioner. It is submitted that while passing the order dated 15.09.2014 in Special Civil Application No.18280 of 2013, the petitioner reiterated the contention that, the citations/decisions relied upon by the petitioner, were not considered by the competent authority and in view thereof, the petitioner objected to the order of remand to the learned SSRD.
5.1 Ms. Vyas, learned advocate reiterated that the entries are mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the sale deed as mutation entry No.540 on 07.12.1995 and confirmed on 18.01.1996. It is submitted that once the entries were mutated in the revenue record and the petitioner's father is an agriculturist is not in dispute and the petitioner's name is also reflected in the 7/12 record, it was not open for the respondent authorities to hold that the petitioner herein is not an agriculturist for a transaction with respect to a registered sale deed as back as in the year 1995 and the same was duly Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:54:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined certified. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 30.08.2018 is required to be quashed and set aside.
6. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the respondents is not in a position to contradict the fact that the petitioner herein had preferred Special Civil Application No.18280 of 2013 wherein, while disposing the petition by order dated 15.09.2014, liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioner to prefer appropriate application before the concerned authority. In view thereof, the petitioner approached the Revisional Authority by preferring Revision Application No.2 of 2015 along with an application seeking condonation of delay.
7. Having heard the learned advocate and learned AGP appearing for the respective parties, the facts, as referred to herein above, are undisputed.
7.1 It emerges from the record that the petitioner challenged the order passed by the learned SSRD dated 30.08.2018 by preferring Special Civil Application No.18280 of 2013 which came to be disposed of by order dated 15.09.2014 reserving Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:54:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined the liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefer an appropriate application before the concerned authority and if such an application is made, the concerned authority will pass appropriate order. It is apposite to refer paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.18280 of 2013, dated 15.09.2014, which read thus:
"6. Though there is no reference about above referred decision/citation, learned advocate for the petitioner insisted that learned advocate who appeared for the petitioner had cited, and relied on, the said decision at the time of hearing before the respondent no.3 however, the said decision is not considered.
7. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner assails the impugned order on the said ground and wants to contend that though the petitioner through his learned advocate was heard at length by respondent no.3 and even written arguments have been recorded and considered, the judgment cited by the petitioner's counsel is not considered and is dealt with.
8. The said submission is based on alleged fact-situation, which is said to have occurred at the time of hearing before the authority i.e respondent no.3 and therefore, the petitioner should first approach, with appropriate application, the concerned authority and point out the alleged lapse in the order and request the authority to record finding of facts on the said aspect i.e. as to whether the said decision was cited and relied on as petitioner's advocate at the time of hearing before him or not.
9. For the said aspect, present petition is disposed of at his stage with liberty to the petitioner to take out appropriate application before the concerned authority. If such application is made, the concerned authority will pass appropriate order. With the said observation, the petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged."
8. In view thereof, the learned SSRD, in the opinion of this Court, erred in not considering chain of events which gave rise to the filing of the Revision Application. The aforesaid was also Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:54:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay. It can easily be inferred that a bonafide application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner herein was not considered by the learned SSRD in its true spirit. Delay, if any, ought to have been condoned.
9. On the aforesaid ground, the impugned order passed by the learned SSRD, dated 30.08.2018 in No.MVV/GHRKH/BVN/2/2015, is quashed and set aside. In view thereof, the Revision Application filed by the petitioner on 20.01.2025, be registered and heard on its own merits without being influenced by the earlier order passed by the learned SSRD in No.MVV/GHARKH/BVN/62/2011, dated 24.06.2013, independently and in accordance with law as also, in accordance with the order passed in Special Civil Application No.18280 of 2013, dated 15.09.2014.
10. With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) NEHA Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:54:05 IST 2025