Gujarat High Court
Ashwin Rameshbhai Patel vs Member Secretary, District Land ... on 2 May, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/624/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 624 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4211 of 2025
==================================================
ASHWIN RAMESHBHAI PATEL
Versus
MEMBER SECRETARY, DISTRICT LAND GRABBING (PROHIBITION)
COMMITTEE AND ADDL. COLLECTOR, ANAND
==================================================
Appearance:
JAY R SHAH(8428) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 02/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
record.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment
and order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
dismissing Special Civil Application No. 4211 of 2025 relegating the
petitioner to avail the alternative remedy, as available under the
Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020.
2.1. The challenge before the writ Court was to the communication
dated 04.03.2025 sent by the Mamlatdar intimating the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/624/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
that the dispute raised by him is engaging attention of the civil court
in a civil suit namely, Regular Civil Suit No. 6 of 2025. A perusal of
the record of the writ petition indicates that as per the status of the
civil suit as brought on record, the same is pending. We may note
that the plaint of the civil suit has not been brought on record and, as
such, it is not possible for us to ascertain the exact nature of dispute
therein.
2.2. Be that as it may, as per the statement made in paragraph
'3.1.', '3.2.' of the writ petition, the petitioner claims that the land in
question originally belonged to his grandfather, who had purchased
it in the year 1950. However, it is sought to be stated in paragraph
'3.2' that after the demise of the grandfather of the petitioner, the
name of the legal heir was entered therein in the revenue records
and all other legal heirs have released their rights in favour of the
petitioner and in this manner, the petitioner had received the entire
property in succession. A copy of the village form 7/12 has been
appended herein to assert that the name of the petitioner is shown as
occupier.
3. Further in a vague manner it is sought to be stated that the
accused persons of petitioner's complaint were cultivating the land of
the petitioner and the petitioner use to share the profit from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/624/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
revenue generated from the cultivation of the land in question. They
started quarreling with the petitioner and, as such, a notice was
issued on 17.10.2024 asking them not to enter into the land in
question, but the accused persons have retained and taken
possession of the land forcefully and are not vacating the land in
question which is of petitioner's ownership and hence the petitioner
has filed complaint dated 03.12.2024 under the provisions of the
Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 against the accused
persons.
4. A perusal of the memorandum of the writ petition indicates
that none of the so called accused persons are party to the writ
petition. The petitioner has not disclosed the status of the accused
persons nor even their names in the writ petition. The statement
made in the writ petition that the petitioner is the sole owner of the
land in question cannot be appreciated in absence of any detail or
the description of the legal heirs who allegedly have relinquished
their rights in the land in question.
5. At least from the averments made in the paragraphs '3.1.',
'3.2.' and '3.3' of the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner
had not inherited the land in question from his grandfather as a sole
owner and there are other legal heirs whose names were recorded in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/624/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
the revenue records at the relevant point of time. From the above
noted facts, it is evident that the writ petition has been filed with
incorrect, incomplete details with respect to the right of the
petitioner over the land in question.
6. The fact that a civil suit has been filed by the persons against
whom complaint has been filed under the Gujarat Land Grabbing
(Prohibition) Act and those persons are not party to the writ petition
is sufficient to dismiss the writ petition.
7. For the reasons given above, we find it fit and proper to turn
down the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and
dismiss the appeal and uphold the order of dismissal of the writ
petition.
8. It is however, made it clear that the dismissal of the writ
petition and this appeal, and the observations made in both the
orders of dismissal will not come in the way of the petitioner in the
pending civil proceedings which shall be dealt with by the court
concerned strictly in accordance with law.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
phalguni
