[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Limbabhai Gandabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 2 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15088/2012 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15088 of 2012
==========================================================
LIMBABHAI GANDABHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJESH O GIDIYA(5222) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 02/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rajesh O. Gidiya for
the petitioners and learned AGP for the respondents.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Gidiya for the petitioners
submits that in similar set of facts, the Coordinate
Bench of this Court has passed an order on 12.08.2008
in Special Civil Application No.5959 of 2008 and
therefore similar order may also be passed in the
present petition also. Learned AGP has not raised any
objection and submitted that considering the facts of
the present case, appropriate order may be passed.
3. The order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15088/2012 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
Application No.5959 of 2008 reads as under:
"1. Heard learned advocate, Shri
C.B.Upadhyaya, for the petitioner and learned
AGP, Shri J.K.Shah, for the State.
2. Petitioner has challenged an order dated
21.12.2005 passed by Joint Secretary (Appeals)
Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat by
which an order dated 19.5.1999 passed by
Collector, Bhavnagar came to be upheld.
3. The petitioner had applied for being
granted the Government land admeasuring 1 Acre
and 38 Gunthas of Village Patana, bearing
Survey No.226/2. The petitioner was the onwer
of land adjacent to Survey No.226/2. The
request was granted by the Deputy Collector
and by an order dated 18.3.1997, the land in
question was given to the petitioner upon
payment of market price assessed at
Rs.14,000/- per Acre i.e. total of
Rs.27,300/-.
4. The order of the Deputy Collector was taken
by the Collector in suo-motu revision and by
an order dated 19.5.1999, the same came to be
set aside.
5. The petitioner approached the Government by
filing revision application against the order
passed by the Collector. His revision
application also came to be turned down by the
Secretary by the impugned order dated
21.12.2005.
6. In his order dated 19th May, 1999, the
Collector, Bhavnagar observed inter-alia that
though there were other claimants for the same
land, it was decided to grant the land to the
petitioner without verification of the other
claims. It is also observed that the decision
of the Deputy Collector that the land was a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15088/2012 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
fragment is also not established from the
record. On all these grounds, the Collector,
was pleased to set aside the order of the
Deputy Collector. The Revenue Secretary for
similar reasons rejected the revision
application of the petitioner.
7. Upon perusal of the record and after
hearing the learned advocates, I find that the
orders under challenge call for no
interference. The Collector has given
appropriate reasons for recalling the grant of
land. There is nothing on the record to show
that factual conclusions recorded by the
Collector are not borne out from the evidence.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted
that the Collector exercised his power after
much delay. It may, however, be noted that
land was granted to the petitioner in March,
1997, the Collector passed his order in May,
1999. In the meantime, he had issued notice to
the petitioner and given him an opportunity of
hearing. It can, therefore, be not stated that
initiation of the proceedings was delayed by
two years. Under the circumstances, the
impugned orders are required to be upheld.
8. Learned advocate, Shri Upadhayaya, for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner was
put in actual possession of the land way back
in the year 1997. Even today, he continues to
hold possession thereof. The land was
government Kharaba land which has after been
much effort made cultivable.
9. Considering the above submissions, even
while upholding the orders under challenge
passed by authorities below, it is provided
that it will be open for the petitioner to
apply to the Collector for regularization of
his occupation of the land. If such an
application is made within four weeks from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15088/2012 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
today, the same may be considered and decided
in accordance with law expeditiously. Until
such time, this is done, possession of the
petitioner shall not be disturbed.
10. The petition is disposed of accordingly."
4. In view of the aforesaid observations made by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court and submissions
canvassed by both the learned advocates, the orders
impugned passed by the concerned revenue authorities
are hereby uphold. However, it is open for the
petitioners to apply to the concerned District
Collector for regularization of their occupation of
the land. If such an application is made within a
period of four weeks from today, the same shall be
considered and decided, as per the prevailing policy
of the State, within a period of three months
thereafter and till the conclusion of said exercise,
the possession of the petitioners shall not be
disturbed.
5. With the aforesaid observations and directions,
petition stands disposed of.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
