[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Patel Amrutbhai Khodidas vs Patel Gomtiben Parshottamdas on 5 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21366/2017 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21366 of 2017
==========================================================
PATEL AMRUTBHAI KHODIDAS
Versus
PATEL GOMTIBEN PARSHOTTAMDAS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
A H OZA(7734) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAJENDRA PATEL(645) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. SIDHARTH DESAI, LD. ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 10,7,8,9
KOMAL S DAVE(8152) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR DHAVAL M PATEL(5348) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
MR SIDDHARTH H DAVE(5306) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 05/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the writ applicant has called in question
the legality and validity of the order dated 17.08.2013 passed
by the Prant Officer, Annexure-J in R.T.S. Dispute No.26/2012
and order dated 24.07.2015 passed by Collector, Annexure-K,
in R.T.S./Revision.205/2013 as well as the order dated
24.08.2017 passed by S.S.R.D in Revision Application No.54 of
2015.
2. Facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of the present writ
application may be summarized as under;
2.1 The grandfather of the writ applicant, namely, Shri Visdas
Harjivandas Patel was holding some parcels of land, who
expired on 21.08.1963, leaving behind his three children,
namely, Khodidas Visdas Patel, Parshottamdas Visdas Patel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21366/2017 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
and Puriben, and an entry to that effect had also been mutated
in the revenue record being Entry No.1892 dated 16.11.1963
in respect of the land belonging to him.
2.2 Thereafter, partition took place amongst the two
brothers, namely, Khodidas Visdas Patel and Parshottamdas
Visdas Patel. However, as Parshottamdas was expired, land at
Survey No.392 came in the share of Joitiben W/o.
Parshottamdas Partel, and an entry to that effect also came to
be mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No.3307 on
24.07.1972.
2.3 Thereafter, as the daughter of Patel Visdas Harjivandas
had relinquished her rights in favour of her brothers in respect
of her ancestral land, an entry to that effect also came to be
mutated in the revenue record being Entry No.4018.
2.4 Thereafter, an entry being Entry No.8087 dated
16.08.1996 also came to be mutated in the revenue record
disclosing therein that the land at Survey No.392 is running in
the name of Joitiben W/o. Parshottamdas Patel, which she
inherited by the family partition, however, she, on her own will
and wish, is ready to transfer the said land at Survey No.392 in
favour of her nephew Amrutlal Khodidas, and accordingly,
Entry No.8087 came to be mutated in favour of the writ
applicant.
2.5 The aforesaid Entry No.8087 was challenged by the
respondent Nos. 1 to 5 along with late Joitiben Parshottamdas
by filing an appeal being R.T.S. Dispute No.26 of 2012 on
28.1.2013 before the Prant Officer along with an application for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21366/2017 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
condonation of delay.
2.6 The Prant Officer, Kadi, vide its order dated 17.08.2013
allowed the delay condonation application, thereby quashed
and set aside order of Circle Officer, Aadaraj certifying Entry
No.8087.
2.7 Being aggrieved, the writ applicant preferred revision
being Revision Application No.R.T.S/Revision/205/2013 before
the Collector, Mahesana, who vide order dated 24.07.2015,
confirmed/upheld the order passed by the Prant Officer dated
17.08.2013.
2.8 Being aggrieved, the writ applicant preferred revision
application before the Special Secretary (Appeals) being
Revision Application No.54/2015, who vide its order dated
24.08.2017, upheld the order passed by the Collector,
Mehsana dated 24.07.2015.
2.9 Being aggrieved, the writ applicant is here before this
Court with the present writ application.
3. Learned advocate Rajendra Patel appearing for the writ
applicant submits that all the three impugned orders passed
by the revenue authorities below are unjust, illegal, perverse,
arbitrary and contrary to the settled legal proposition, and as
such, deserve to be quashed and set aside. He further submits
that the Prant Officer, Kadi has erred in deciding the main
application along with the delay condonation application, as
the written arguments canvassed by the writ applicant was
only confined to challenge the delay condonation application
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21366/2017 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
and no reply was filed to the main application, and as such, the
same resulted against the writ applicant of not being provided
an opportunity to contest the main application on merits.
Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that not only the
Prant Office, but the other two higher revenue authorities, i.e.,
the Collector and the S.S.R.D. also failed to appreciate the said
aspect and committed serious error in upholding the decisions
of their subordinate authorities. He also submits that all the
three revenue authorities have failed to appreciate the
documentary evidence on record, in the backdrop of which,
Entry No.8087 was mutated in favour of the writ applicant.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that all the
three revenue authorities have also failed to appreciate the
fact that before finalizing Entry No.8087, notice under Section
135-D also came to be issued to the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and
late Joitiben, an acknowledge receipts of which, have also been
placed on record. He further submits that the Entry No.8087
was mutated and certified in the year 1996, against which,
proceedings came to be initiated by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5
in the year 2012, and as such, there is a delay of almost 16
years in challenging Entry No.8087. Learned advocate Mr.
Patel also submits that issuance notice under Section 135-D is
always prior to finalization of an entry in the revenue record,
and thus, it clearly appears that the respondent Nos.1 to 5
along with Late Joitiben were very well aware about the
mutation of Entry No.8087 in the year 1996. He further
submits that Entry No.8087 was not challenged by the
respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Late Joitiben till 2012, though they
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21366/2017 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
were in knowledge about mutation of such entry, which clearly
appears from the service of notice under Section 135-D.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that the
defense put forth by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and late
Joitiben that their signatures were obtained fraudulently by the
writ applicant on blank paper to get the names of respondent
Nos.1 to 3 mutated in the revenue record are absolutely false
and frivolous one, as the said contention is not believable for
the reason that, if it is so, then what was the say of respondent
Nos.1 to 5 and late Joitiben qua receipt of notice under Section
135-D at their end. There is no answer to this which reveals
truth, and as such, all the three impugned orders are required
to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Patel also
submits that the averments made in the original application by
the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and late Joitiben before the Prant
Officer are vague and without better particulars, and no
opportunity was given to the writ applicant to meet with the
same. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that the
authorities below have completely failed to appreciate that the
written arguments submitted by the writ applicant were only
confined to the delay condonation application and not on
merits qua the original application, and despite the same, the
main application decided on merits without affording an
opportunity to the writ applicant to contest the original
application on merits by permitting him to lead oral as well as
documentary evidences, and as such, all the three impugned
order suffer from various legal infirmities, and thus are
required to be quashed and set aside, and the matter is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21366/2017 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
required to be remitted back to the concerned revenue
authority to decide it afresh after providing adequate
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Siddharth Desai appearing for the
State-respondents has objected the present application and
submits that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could
be said to have been committed by the thee revenue
authorities below while passing the impugned orders. The
Prant Officer, on the basis of the materials available on record,
thought it fit to decide the matter finally, and after taking into
consideration all the materials available on record, has passed
just, fair and reasonable order, which was later confirmed by
the Collector, and then by the S.S.R.D, and as such, the orders
passed by all the three revenue authorities being just, legal
and proper, do not require any interference at the end of this
Court. However, he has fairly conceded that, looking to the
written arguments filed by the writ applicant in the delay
condonation application, it appears that the same was
confined only to oppose the delay condonation application, and
not the main matter on merits, and as such, he has no
objection if the matter is remanded back to the concerned
revenue authority to decide it afresh.
7. None appears on behalf of the private respondents.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the record.
9. The controversy involved in the present matter seems to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21366/2017 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
be with regard to the mutation of entry in respect of an
ancestral land. It appears that both, the writ applicant and the
private respondents belongs to one family. It further appears
that the entry in question being Mutation Entry No.8087 was
mutated and certified in the year 1996 in favour of the writ
applicant. In the year 2012, proceedings were initiated by the
private respondents, challenging Mutation Entry No.8087,
however, as there was a delay in initiating the said
proceedings, a separate delay condonation application also
came to be filed along with the main application. However, it
appears that instead of deciding the delay condonation
application individually, the Prant Officer proceeded to decide
the main application itself.
10. The grievance of the writ applicants seems to be that the
Prant Officer cannot decide the main application on merits in
the delay condonation application proceedings without there
being any reply filed by the writ applicant on merits in
response to the averments made in the main application. The
grievance of the writ applicant is that the written arguments
filed by him was confined only to the delay condonation
application, and thus, he was deprived of his fundamental
rights to contest the main application on merits.
11. I have also gone through the written arguments filed by
the writ applicant before the Prant Officer, and upon its
perusal, I have found substance in the arguments canvassed
by the writ applicant that the same was confined only to
oppose the delay condonation application. Thus, it appears
that the writ applicant was not afforded an opportunity to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21366/2017 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
contest the main application on merits. Thus only on this
ground alone, without going into the merits of the matter, I am
inclined to remand the matter back to the concerned revenue
authority to decide it afresh.
12. In the result, the present application is allowed. The
Impugned order dated 17.08.2013 passed by the Prant Officer,
Annexure-J in R.T.S. Dispute No.26/2012 and order dated
24.07.2015 passed by Collector in R.T.S./Revision.205/2013 as
well as the order dated 24.08.2017 passed by S.S.R.D in
Revision Application No.54 of 2015 are hereby quashed and
set aside, and matter is remanded back to the Deputy
Collector, Kadi to take fresh de novo decision, after giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
