Gujarat High Court
Vaibhaviben Hardikbhai Patel vs Special Secretary (Appeals) on 4 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4459/2016 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4459 of 2016
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4457 of 2016
==========================================================
VAIBHAVIBEN HARDIKBHAI PATEL
Versus
SPECIAL SECRETARY (APPEALS) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NIDHI VYAS AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 04/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Vimal A. Purohit for the
petitioner, the learned AGP Ms. Nidhi Vyas for the respondent No.1
and the learned counsel Mr. Premal R. Joshi for the respondent
Nos.2 and 3.
2. The present Writ Petitions impugn the judgment and order
dated 30.12.2015, whereby the respondent No.1 Secretary
(Appeals), Revenue Department has allowed the suo motu revision
applications and cancelled the revised non-agricultural use
permission from residential to commercial purpose issued in favour
of the petitioner.
3. In the present case, the petitioner was granted the revised
non-agricultural use permission from residential to commercial
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4459/2016 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
purpose by the order dated 18.09.2010 passed by the respondent
No.3 Taluka Development Officer, Mundra since the petitioner
proposed to set up a hotel on the subject land. That thereafter, the
respondent No.2 District Development Officer made a
representation to the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals), Revenue
Department for taking the said order dated 18.09.2010 in revision
under Section 211 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code on the ground
that there were various violations of law while granting such a
permission by the respondent No.3 Taluka Development Officer.
Accordingly, the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals), Revenue
Department issued the show-cause-notice dated 12.09.2011 to the
petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply. That thereafter, the
final hearing took place and the parties to the proceedings came to
be heard. The written submissions also came to be filed. By the
impugned order dated 30.12.2015, the respondent No.1 Secretary
(Appeals), Revenue Department allowed the suo motu revision
applications holding that the order dated 18.09.2010 passed by the
respondent No.3 Taluka Development Officer granting the revised
non-agricultural use permission from residential to commercial
purpose was in violation of various Government Resolutions and the
Gujarat Land Revenue Code Rules.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had complied with all the necessary procedures and the
rules and in the present case, there is no violation of the same. The
learned counsel submits that the impugned order does not consider
any of the submissions put-forth on behalf of the petitioner before
the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department and
no cogent reasons have been assigned while allowing the suo motu
revision applications. The learned counsel submits that general
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4459/2016 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
findings have been rendered by the respondent No.1 Secretary
(Appeals), Revenue Department while allowing the suo motu
revision applications. He submits that the petitioner had specifically
given the reply to each and every ground raised in the show-cause-
notice. He submits that none of the submissions have been
adverted to in the impugned order. He submits that the impugned
order is required to be quashed and set aside as there is no violation
of any Rule or the Government Resolution. The learned counsel
submits that the petitioner had raised a specific contention before
the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department that
the proposal forwarded by the respondent No.2 District
Development Officer was misconceived and was based on
misreading of the provisions of Section 65 of the Gujarat Land
Revenue Code as well as the the Government Resolution in that
regard. He submits that all these contentions have not been dealt
with in the impugned order, nor any finding has been rendered
thereon.
5. The learned AGP appearing for the respondent No.1 as well as
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3
submit that the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals) has taken into
consideration all the documents as well as submissions made on
behalf of the parties while passing the impugned order. It is
submitted that a specific finding has been rendered that there is
violation of Government Resolutions and the Gujarat Land Revenue
Code Rules in the present case. It is further submitted that the
respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals) has come to the specific
conclusion that the grounds, on which the suo motu revision
proceedings was initiated, are also duly proved by the authority and
the documents placed on record. They, therefore, submit that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4459/2016 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
order dated 18.09.2010 passed by the respondent No.3 Taluka
Development Officer granting permission for conversion of non-
agricultural from residential to commercial was bad in law and
contrary to the Rules and the Government Resolutions in that
regard. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals)
has observed that all the five grounds, on which the show-cause-
notice came to be issued to the petitioner, have been duly proved.
They, therefore, submit that no interference is called for in the
impugned order and the Special Civil Applications be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties, perused the
documents and considered the submissions.
7. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 30.12.2015 shows
that the reasonings, as recorded by the respondent No.1 Secretary
(Appeals), are vague in nature. While recording the five reasons,
which are the basis for initiating the revision proceedings against
the order dated 18.09.2010 passed by the respondent No.3 Taluka
Development Officer, it is seen that the learned Secretary (Appeals)
has only stated in the impugned order that there is violation of the
provisions of Section 65, 65(1) and 65(2) and various Government
Resolutions dated 01.07.2008, 08.08.1989, 06.07.1985 and
17.07.1980 and there is no compliance thereof by the respondent
No.3 Taluka Development Officer while passing the order dated
18.09.2010. It is further observed that necessary procedures have
also not been followed in the present case and therefore, the
learned Secretary (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that the
order dated 18.09.2010 passed by the respondent No.3 Taluka
Development Officer is bad in law and contrary to the Gujarat Land
Revenue Code and the Rules. While rendering such finding, no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4459/2016 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
specific reasons have been assigned for coming to such conclusion.
In the considered opinion of this Court, when the learned Secretary
(Appeals) has issued the show cause notice on five issues, it was
imperative to deal with each issue and record a finding in respect of
violation. Further, while recording that the submissions of the
parties have been taken into consideration, the said contentions are
also not dealt with specifically while rejecting the same by the
impugned order. In fact, the impugned order is de-hors any valid
reason or finding. The learned Secretary (Appeals) ought to have
dealt with all the issues so raised in the show cause notice
specifically and by giving specific reasoning in respect of those
issues.
8. Further, it is the specific contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that though the petitioner had also submitted before
the learned Secretary (Appeals) that the show-cause-notice has
been issued on misreading and misconstruction of the provisions of
Sections 65, 65(1) and 65A and the submissions were also made,
the impugned order does not deal with the same. This Court finds
that the impugned order is sans any cogent reasons and findings on
the grounds on which the show-cause-notice has been issued to the
petitioner herein.
9. In view of the aforesaid observations and reasons, the
impugned orders dated 30.12.2015 is quashed and set aside and
Suo Motu Revision Application No.41 of 2011 and Suo Motu Revision
Application No.42 of 2011 are remanded back to the learned
Secretary (Appeals) for fresh consideration on merits. The learned
Secretary (Appeals) shall deal with all the submissions and the
contentions so raised by the parties and give cogent reasons in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4459/2016 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
respect of the findings for each of the grounds as enumerated in the
show-cause-notice dated 12.09.2011. It is made clear that this Court
has not gone into the merits of the case and no opinion is expressed
thereon. Since the suo motu revision applications are of the year
2011, the learned Secretary (Appeals) is directed to conclude the
remand proceedings within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of this order after giving due notice to the parties.
10. The Special Civil Applications are accordingly allowed to the
aforesaid extent and disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Direct service is permitted.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
cmk
