Nayi Rameshbhai Ishwarbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 23 February, 2026

                                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/2446/2017                                           ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026

                                                                                                                        undefined




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.                         2446 of 2017

                      =======================================================
                                     NAYI RAMESHBHAI ISHWARBHAI
                                               Versus
                                      STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      =======================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      MR NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      ANSHUL N SHAH(8540) for the Respondent(s) No. 6.1
                      MS SURBHI BHATI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
                      NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 6
                      =======================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

                                                       Date : 23/02/2026
                                                             ORAL ORDER

01. By filing present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provision of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 read with Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the respondent - Secretary in Revision Application No.MVV/JMN/Patan/26/2016, the order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the respondent - Collector and the order dated 20.02.1974 passed by the respondent - Deputy Collector.

02. Heard leaned advocate, Mr. Nishit Gandhi for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Surbhi Bhati for the respondents - State authorities. Learned advocate, Mr. Anshul Shah has not remained present.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2446/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026

undefined

03. Learned advocate, Mr. Gandhi referred to the facts of the present case and submitted that the dispute pertains to land bearing Survey No.61 situated in the sim of Village : Khimayana, Tal. & Dist.: Patan, which was originally belonging to one Hajam Sanka and after his sad demise, the name of the father of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No.439 on 24.01.1961 and, thereafter, he was in possession of the land in question. He submitted that however despite the fact that the said land was in possession of the father of the petitioner, suo motu proceedings were initiated on the ground of breach and, thereafter, the respondent - Deputy Collector, by an order dated 20.02.1974, held that there is breach of condition by the father of the petitioner and an order of forfeiture of the land has been passed. He, however, submitted that at that relevant point of time, no notice was served upon the father of the petitioner, therefore, neither the father nor the petitioner herein was aware about the said fact. He submitted that however as soon as the said fact came to the notice of the petitioner, he challenged the aforesaid order dated 20.02.1974 before the respondent - Collector in the year 2016 and as there was delay, an application for condonation of delay was also moved, however without deciding the said application on merits, the respondent

- Collector returned those papers/ application to the petitioner herein on the ground that the appeal has been preferred after a period of 42 years and no order was passed thereon, therefore, the said order was

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2446/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026

undefined

challenged before the respondent - Secretary by filing revision application, however, the said revision application has been rejected without considering the facts of the case, therefore, the present petition has been preferred.

04. Learned advocate, Mr. Gandhi submitted that in fact, as can be seen from the documents produced on record, on the application preferred by the petitioner in the year 2016, no order is passed, which is against the settled proposition of law because as and when an application is moved, appropriate order either allowing or rejecting it, has to be passed but here in the present case on hand, it has not bee passed and the papers have been returned back to the petitioner, therefore, there is violation of principle of natural justice, therefore, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate order. He submitted that in fact, no notice was served upon the petitioner at the relevant point of time and neither the petitioner nor his father were aware about passing of such order, otherwise, it would have been challenged immediately, however none of the revenue authorities have properly considered those facts and wrongly passed impugned orders. He, therefore, submitted that the present petition may be allowed.

05. Alternatively, learned advocate, Mr. Gandhi submitted that admittedly, there is violation of principle of natural justice in view of the fact that

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2446/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026

undefined

without deciding the application of the petitioner, it has been returned back, therefore, the matter may be remanded back for deciding the said application on merits.

06. On the other hand, learned AGP Ms. Surbhi Bhati referred to the impugned orders and submitted that there is no dispute about the challenge of the entry after a period of more than 42 years. She, however, is not in a position to dispute about the handing over the papers back to the petitioner without passing any order. She, therefore, submitted that appropriate order may be passed.

07. In view of the rival submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the parties and having considered the facts of the case, it has emerged that the land in question was originally belonging to one Hajam Sanka, however his death, the father of the petitioner became the absolute owner and occupant of the land in question and accordingly, Entry No.439 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 24.01.1961, however for the reasons best known to the authorities, the said entry was taken into suo motu revision and, thereafter by an order dated 20.02.1974, the said entry has been cancelled and the order has been vested into Government and the said order has been challenged before the respondent - Collector in the year 2016 by filing appropriate application along with an application for condonation of delay, however without deciding the said application

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2446/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026

undefined

on merits, it has been returned back to the petitioner as there is more than 42 years of delay in challenging the said order, therefore, the said order/communication has been challenged before the respondent - Secretary, who, reiterating the observations of the respondent - Collector, rejected the said revision, therefore, both the orders have been challenged before this Hon'ble Court by filing present petition.

08. However if the facts of the present case are examined, in that event, it is found out that no order has been passed by the respondent - Collector on the application preferred by him challenging the order dated 20.02.1974 of the respondent - Deputy Collector and when the said order was challenged before the respondent - Secretary, it has not been considered by the respondent - Secretary and rejected the revision application and thus, it seems that the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India have been violated. Therefore, the matter deserves to be remanded back before the respondent - Collector for deciding the application preferred by the petitioner on merits.

09. In the facts of the present case, the impugned orders dated dated 13.12.2016 passed by the respondent - Secretary in Revision Application No.MVV/JMN/Patan/26/2016 and the order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the respondent - Collector are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2446/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026

undefined

respondent - Collector for deciding the application preferred by the petitioner on merits after providing opportunity to the parties concerned. The petitioner is permitted to file fresh application before the respondent - Collector along with an application for condonation of delay and also along with all necessary documents in his support. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case, therefore, the respondent - Collector shall decide the case of the petitioner on merits.

10. With the above observation and direction, the present petition stands disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

Sd/-

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam