[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan vs The Collector Dadra And Nagar Haveli And ... on 13 May, 2026
1 7-WP-6565-2026 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6565 OF 2026
Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan ...Petitioner
Versus
The Collector Dadra And Nagar Haveli And Ors ...Respondents
--------------------------------------------
Mr. Vijay Thorat, Senior Advocate i/b Varsha Palav, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, a/w Harsh Dednia, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
--------------------------------------------
CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATED : 13 MAY 2026
P.C.:- (VACATION COURT)
1. Issue Notice to the Respondents returnable on 9th June 2026.
2. Mr. Jain waives service for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.
4. The urgency with which the Petition is moved as stated is that the
Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 5th May
2026 passed by the Collector, Dadra and Nagar Haveli at Silvassa, i.e.,
Respondent No. 1. It is the Petitioner's case that, on 15th May 2026,
personnel from the Department of Administration entered upon the subject
land from the back side, without any notice to the Petitioner, and installed a
2 7-WP-6565-2026 (C).doc
signboard stating, "This land belongs to the Government." It is also the
Petitioner's case that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, despite service of the said
application, have continued their illegal acts of excavation without carrying
out any survey or demarcation of the subject land, and have excavated the
land randomly, thereby causing damage and loss to the 1,304 mango trees
which are presently under harvest. All these actions are stated to have caused
great prejudice to the Petitioner.
5. Having heard Mr. Thorat, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner,
and Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the Respondent-Authorities, it is evident
that the impugned judgment was delivered on 4th May 2026, and a copy
thereof was made available to the Petitioner on 5th May 2026. By the said
impugned judgment, the application filed by the Applicant, i.e., the present
Petitioner, under Rule 10(2) of the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Land Reforms
Rules, 1972, framed under the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Land Reforms
Regulation, 1971, seeking grant of occupancy rights, came to be rejected in
light of the reasons set out therein.
6. Mr. Thorat, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, has drawn the
attention of this Court to certain averments made in paragraph 23 of the
Petition. It has been stated therein that the Petitioner claims rights in respect
of the said property/land by virtue of two Wills executed in his favour in the
3 7-WP-6565-2026 (C).doc
years 1994 and 1997. He has also relied upon certain mutation entries at
pages 151 and 154 of the Petition, wherein the Petitioner's name is reflected
in the land records.
7. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the Respondents, has vehemently refuted
these submissions. He submits that the contention regarding the Wills has
been raised for the first time in the present Petition and was never taken in
the Application filed before the Authority and/or in the Written Submissions
filed therein, by the Petitioner.
8. Mr. Jain has further submitted that an alternate efficacious remedy is
available to the Petitioner under Section 45 of the Dadra and Nagar Haveli
Land Reforms Regulation, 1971, and that the Petitioner has incorrectly stated
in the Petition that no alternate remedy is available.
9. Mr. Jain, on instructions, states that possession in respect of the said
property/land was already taken on 5th May 2026. He further submits that
fencing has also been carried out on the said land by the authorities. This,
however, is disputed by Mr. Thorat on behalf of the Petitioner.
10. The Respondents are directed to file an affidavit placing on record
these developments, which are strongly disputed and denied by the Petitioner.
Mr. Jain has further stated, on instructions, that the possession was taken
4 7-WP-6565-2026 (C).doc
pursuant to a Panchanama drawn on 5th May 2026.
11. Upon a query put to Mr. Jain regarding the period prescribed for filing
an appeal against the impugned judgment and order, it was fairly submitted
that the limitation period for filing an appeal is 60 days. However, the action
of taking possession appears to have been undertaken on the very next day,
i.e., 5th May 2026, despite the order having been passed on 4th May 2026.
12. In light of the above, we direct the Respondent-Authorities,
represented by Mr. Jain, to file an additional affidavit placing on record these
subsequent developments within a period of two weeks from today.
13. The Petitioner is at liberty to file a rejoinder within a period of one
week thereafter.
14. In the given factual complexion, by way of an ad interim order, it is
directed that the parties shall maintain status quo as on date until the next
date of hearing.
15. Place the proceedings for further consideration on 9th June 2026.
16. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]
