Gujarat High Court
Valiben Kalabhai Rada vs The State Of Gujarat on 23 September, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4874/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
4874 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1115 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1115 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8562 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 1115 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8562 of 2025
=============================================
VALIBEN KALABHAI RADA
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR KP CHAMPANERI(5643) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. HETAL PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 23/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. The explanation for delay in filing the appeal is to the
satisfaction of the Court. The delay condonation application is
allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Office is directed to give regular number.
2. Having perused the order passed by the learned Single
Judge, considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, pertinent is to record that there is
no dispute about the fact that the proceedings under Section
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4874/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
61 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (for short, "the
Revenue Code") had been brought to its logical end with the
passing of the order dated 31.08.2021 by the competent
authority wherein, the petitioner has been declared to be an
encroacher of the Government land bearing survey No.308.
3. It is also not in dispute that the said proceedings were
brought to its logical end after giving due opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and to file evidence in support of her
case.
4. It is pertinent to note that after the aforesaid order, the
petitioner had filed an application for regularization of
encroachment before the Collector by way of representation,
which came to be rejected vide order dated 11.06.2025
passed by the Collector. There is no challenge to the orders
dated 31.08.2021 under Section 61 of the Revenue Code or
the order dated 11.06.2025 of rejection of representation of
the petitioner for regularization passed by the Collector.
5. The record further indicates that the notice dated
23.06.2025 came to be issued under Section 202 of the
Revenue Code, which was challenged before the writ Court by
filing the writ petition on 26.06.2025, the same date when the
judgment impugned has been passed by the learned Single
Judge.
6. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that even in case of removal of an
encroachment, it was incumbent upon the authorities to
provide a reasonable time to the petitioner to remove the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4874/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
encroachment. In the instant case, only three days' time was
given in the impugned notice issued on 23.06.2025 and the
date on which the writ petition was heard by the learned
Single Judge, the constructions on the spot were demolished.
7. Reference has been made to the decision of the Apex
Court in Re-Directions in the matter of Demolition of
Structures, Writ Petition (C) No.295 of 2022 decided on
13.11.2024 to submit that even unauthorized construction
cannot be removed or demolished without following due
procedure of law.
8. Testing these submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, pertinent is to record that the petitioner had been
declared encroacher by an order passed in the year 2021. The
fact that the representation was moved for regularization of
possession and the decision was taken in the year 2025,
cannot be a reason to hold that the petitioner could continue
to occupy the Government land illegally without having any
right, title or interest in the same. Once the order of rejection
of the application for regularization had attained finality, the
petitioner had no right to retain her possession. The fact that
three days' time was granted by the Government authorities
to remove the existing encroachment will have no bearing on
the judgment impugned where simplicitor challenge was to
the notice of removal of the encroachment without there
being any further challenge to the orders of rejection of the
application for regularization or holding the petitioner an
encroacher.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4874/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
9. The record indicates that the petitioner has continued to
occupy the Government land for about more than four years
even after being declared as an encroacher, by filing
applications here and there. No infirmity, therefore, can be
attached to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The
present appeal stands dismissed, accordingly. Pending civil
application stands disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
SAHIL S. RANGER
