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
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
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
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.
NEUTRAL 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
