Gujarat High Court
Valiben Kalabhai Rada vs The State Of Gujarat on 23 September, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4874/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
4874 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1115 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1115 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8562 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 1115 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8562 of 2025
=============================================
VALIBEN KALABHAI RADA
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR KP CHAMPANERI(5643) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. HETAL PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 23/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. The explanation for delay in filing the appeal is to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Office is directed to give regular number.
2. Having perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, pertinent is to record that there is no dispute about the fact that the proceedings under Section Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:19:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4874/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined 61 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (for short, "the Revenue Code") had been brought to its logical end with the passing of the order dated 31.08.2021 by the competent authority wherein, the petitioner has been declared to be an encroacher of the Government land bearing survey No.308.
3. It is also not in dispute that the said proceedings were brought to its logical end after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to file evidence in support of her case.
4. It is pertinent to note that after the aforesaid order, the petitioner had filed an application for regularization of encroachment before the Collector by way of representation, which came to be rejected vide order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the Collector. There is no challenge to the orders dated 31.08.2021 under Section 61 of the Revenue Code or the order dated 11.06.2025 of rejection of representation of the petitioner for regularization passed by the Collector.
5. The record further indicates that the notice dated 23.06.2025 came to be issued under Section 202 of the Revenue Code, which was challenged before the writ Court by filing the writ petition on 26.06.2025, the same date when the judgment impugned has been passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even in case of removal of an encroachment, it was incumbent upon the authorities to provide a reasonable time to the petitioner to remove the Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:19:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4874/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined encroachment. In the instant case, only three days' time was given in the impugned notice issued on 23.06.2025 and the date on which the writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge, the constructions on the spot were demolished.
7. Reference has been made to the decision of the Apex Court in Re-Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, Writ Petition (C) No.295 of 2022 decided on 13.11.2024 to submit that even unauthorized construction cannot be removed or demolished without following due procedure of law.
8. Testing these submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, pertinent is to record that the petitioner had been declared encroacher by an order passed in the year 2021. The fact that the representation was moved for regularization of possession and the decision was taken in the year 2025, cannot be a reason to hold that the petitioner could continue to occupy the Government land illegally without having any right, title or interest in the same. Once the order of rejection of the application for regularization had attained finality, the petitioner had no right to retain her possession. The fact that three days' time was granted by the Government authorities to remove the existing encroachment will have no bearing on the judgment impugned where simplicitor challenge was to the notice of removal of the encroachment without there being any further challenge to the orders of rejection of the application for regularization or holding the petitioner an encroacher.
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:19:41 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4874/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined
9. The record indicates that the petitioner has continued to occupy the Government land for about more than four years even after being declared as an encroacher, by filing applications here and there. No infirmity, therefore, can be attached to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The present appeal stands dismissed, accordingly. Pending civil application stands disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) SAHIL S. RANGER Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:19:41 IST 2025