Gujarat High Court

Mer Champaben Jadavbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 25 November, 2025

Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/SCA/7361/2019                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                  R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7361 of 2019


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
                       =============================================

                                      Approved for Reporting                 Yes           No

                       =============================================
                                                    MER CHAMPABEN JADAVBHAI
                                                              Versus
                                                     STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                       =============================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS SONAL D VYAS(999) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                       NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 3
                       =============================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                                                         Date : 25/11/2025

                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Jayneel Parikh,

learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf

of the respondents.

2. By way of present petition invoking Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has prayed for the

following reliefs:

"A. YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO issue writ of certiorari

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

and/or writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.08.2018 passed below GHRKH/BVN/2/2015 at Annexure-1.

B. Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this present petition, the respondents may be restrained from interfering with the possession of the land situated at revenue survey No.30 at Village :

Karkolia, Ta. Sihor, District : Bhavnagar.

C. Such other and further relief/s which the Honourable Court may deem fit, just and proper be granted in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice."

3. Heard Ms. Sonal D. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for

the petitioner and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing

for the respondents authorities.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner

purchased the land bearing Survey No.30, admeasuring 4 Acre

- 25 Guntha at Village : Karkolia, Ta. Shihor, District :

Bhavnagar from the respondent No.3 by way of a registered

sale deed dated 13.11.1995. The registered sale deed was

given effect in the revenue record by mutation entry No.540

duly certified on 18.01.1996. Copies of extract of the revenue

record of Survey No.30 are duly produced at Annexure - B to

the petition.

4.1 The respondent No.2 initiated proceedings under Section

75 read with Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

Agricultural Lands Settlement Ordinance, 1949 (for short 'the

Gharkhed Ordinance') on 04.08.2004 on the ground that the

petitioner was not an agriculturist when the land-in-question

was purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner appeared

before the respondent No.2 and stated that the petitioner is

the daughter of an agriculturist, who is holding land at Village :

Vadekhan, Taluka : Lakhtar, District : Surendranagar. That, the

petitioner's name was entered as legal heirs and

representative of her father Jadavbhai @ Jadubhai Mohanbhai

and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not an

agriculturist. A copy of extract of 7/12 record of Survey No.1/24

at Village : Vadekhan, Taluka : Lakhtar, District :

Surendranagar is duly produced at Annexure - C to the

petition.

4.2 In-spite of the availability of the revenue record, the

respondent No.2 ordered to evict the petitioner from the land-

in-question on account of breach of Section 54 of the Gharkhed

Ordinance in exercise of powers under Section 75 of the

Ordinance and further ordered to take possession of the land-

in-question and confiscate the land by order dated 18.10.2010.

A copy of the said order is duly produced at Annexure - D to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

the petition.

4.3 The petitioner approached the learned SSRD challenging

the order passed by the Collector by way of Revision

Application No.62 of 2011 wherein, the learned SSRD by order

dated 21.06.2013, partly allowed the Revision Application

remanding the matter back to the Collector, Bhavnagar, the

respondent No.2 herein. A copy of the said order dated

21.06.2013 is duly produced at Annexure - F to the petition.

4.4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the

learned SSRD, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application

No.18280 of 2013. The said petition came to be disposed of by

order dated 15.09.2014 reserving the liberty in favour of the

petitioner to file appropriate application before the concerned

authority, the respondent No.3 herein.

4.5 Pursuant to the said order dated 15.09.2014, the

petitioner preferred Revision Application No.2 of 2015 along

with an application for condonation of delay. Learned SSRD by

order dated 30.08.2018 rejected the Revision Application on

the ground of delay of 4 years in approaching the respondent

authority. It was held that the petitioner challenged the order

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

passed by the Collector, dated 18.10.2010 on 24.03.2015, the

same was barred by delay of four years. The said order dated

30.08.2018 passed in No.MVV/GHRKH/BVN/2/2015 by the

learned SSRD has given rise to the filing of the present

petition.

5. Ms. Sonal D. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner relied on the facts, as referred to herein above, and

submitted that the learned SSRD has committed an error in

rejecting the Revision Application of the petitioner on the

ground of delay. Referring to the facts, as referred to herein

above, Ms. Vyas, learned advocate submitted that the

petitioner herein had preferred Special Civil Application

No.18280 of 2013 wherein, by order dated 15.09.2014, liberty

was reserved in favour of the petitioner to make appropriate

application before the competent authority and in view

thereof, the petitioner preferred the Revision Application within

a period of three months from the date of the said order and

therefore, the learned SSRD erred in rejecting the Revision

Application of the petitioner being No.2 of 2015. It is submitted

that the petitioner had raised several contentions by way of

written arguments in the earlier proceedings, which were not

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

considered by the learned SSRD, when the Revision Application

of the petitioner being No.MVV/GHARKH/BVN/62/2011

challenging the order passed by the Collector, dated

18.10.2010 was rejected without considering the contentions

of the petitioner. It is submitted that while passing the order

dated 15.09.2014 in Special Civil Application No.18280 of

2013, the petitioner reiterated the contention that, the

citations/decisions relied upon by the petitioner, were not

considered by the competent authority and in view thereof, the

petitioner objected to the order of remand to the learned

SSRD.

5.1 Ms. Vyas, learned advocate reiterated that the entries are

mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the sale deed as

mutation entry No.540 on 07.12.1995 and confirmed on

18.01.1996. It is submitted that once the entries were mutated

in the revenue record and the petitioner's father is an

agriculturist is not in dispute and the petitioner's name is also

reflected in the 7/12 record, it was not open for the respondent

authorities to hold that the petitioner herein is not an

agriculturist for a transaction with respect to a registered sale

deed as back as in the year 1995 and the same was duly

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

certified. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted

that the impugned order dated 30.08.2018 is required to be

quashed and set aside.

6. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the

respondents is not in a position to contradict the fact that the

petitioner herein had preferred Special Civil Application

No.18280 of 2013 wherein, while disposing the petition by

order dated 15.09.2014, liberty was reserved in favour of the

petitioner to prefer appropriate application before the

concerned authority. In view thereof, the petitioner

approached the Revisional Authority by preferring Revision

Application No.2 of 2015 along with an application seeking

condonation of delay.

7. Having heard the learned advocate and learned AGP

appearing for the respective parties, the facts, as referred to

herein above, are undisputed.

7.1 It emerges from the record that the petitioner challenged

the order passed by the learned SSRD dated 30.08.2018 by

preferring Special Civil Application No.18280 of 2013 which

came to be disposed of by order dated 15.09.2014 reserving

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

the liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefer an appropriate

application before the concerned authority and if such an

application is made, the concerned authority will pass

appropriate order. It is apposite to refer paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and

9 of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.18280 of

2013, dated 15.09.2014, which read thus:

"6. Though there is no reference about above referred decision/citation, learned advocate for the petitioner insisted that learned advocate who appeared for the petitioner had cited, and relied on, the said decision at the time of hearing before the respondent no.3 however, the said decision is not considered.

7. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner assails the impugned order on the said ground and wants to contend that though the petitioner through his learned advocate was heard at length by respondent no.3 and even written arguments have been recorded and considered, the judgment cited by the petitioner's counsel is not considered and is dealt with.

8. The said submission is based on alleged fact-situation, which is said to have occurred at the time of hearing before the authority i.e respondent no.3 and therefore, the petitioner should first approach, with appropriate application, the concerned authority and point out the alleged lapse in the order and request the authority to record finding of facts on the said aspect i.e. as to whether the said decision was cited and relied on as petitioner's advocate at the time of hearing before him or not.

9. For the said aspect, present petition is disposed of at his stage with liberty to the petitioner to take out appropriate application before the concerned authority. If such application is made, the concerned authority will pass appropriate order. With the said observation, the petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged."

8. In view thereof, the learned SSRD, in the opinion of this

Court, erred in not considering chain of events which gave rise

to the filing of the Revision Application. The aforesaid was also

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7361/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay. It

can easily be inferred that a bonafide application for

condonation of delay filed by the petitioner herein was not

considered by the learned SSRD in its true spirit. Delay, if any,

ought to have been condoned.

9. On the aforesaid ground, the impugned order passed by