[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Dudhliben, D/O Jhiniya Ravji ... vs State Of Gujarat on 6 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10032/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10032 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DUDHLIBEN, D/O JHINIYA RAVJI (DECEASED) & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NACHIKET A DAVE(5308) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1.1,1.2
MR JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR AMIT K DAVE(5860) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR KT DAVE(257) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 06/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives
service of notice of Rule qua respondent Nos. 1 to 3
and learned advocate Mr. Amit K. Dave waives service
of notice of Rule qua respondent No.4.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Nachiket Dave for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10032/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
petitioners submits that proceedings under Section
73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code have been
initiated against the present petitioners by the
respondent No.3. He submits that respondent No.3 has
initiated the said proceedings ex parte and without
issuance of any notice to the petitioners, the order
came to be passed by the respondent No.3. As soon as
said fact has come to the notice of the petitioners,
immediately they assailed the said order by way of
preferring an appeal before the respondent No.2. He
further submits that at the time of assailing the
order passed by the respondent No.3 before the
respondent No.2, the petitioners have raised manyfold
grounds including the ground of violation of
principle of natural justice by the respondent No.3.
However, the said important aspects have not been
considered by the respondent No.2 and appeal
preferred by the petitioners came to be dismissed by
the respondent No.2 by upholding the order of
respondent No.3. The petitioners therefore preferred
a revision before the Special Secretary, Revenue
Department (Appeals). However, the said revision also
came to be dismissed by the SSRD without considering
and appreciating the important aspect of violation of
principle of natural justice by the Deputy Collector
while passing the order. Therefore, present petition
is filed.
3. Based on the aforesaid submissions, this Court
thought it fit to call for the record and proceedings
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10032/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
from the concerned revenue authority. I have verified
the record and proceedings. It is found out from the
record that a notice for initiation of proceedings
under the provisions of Section 73AA of the Code has
been issued to the petitioners through RPAD, however,
record reveals that the said notice has been served
to a third party. Thus, upon minutely going through
the record, prima facie, it appears that the notice
issued by respondent No.3 for initiation of
proceedings under the provisions of Section 73AA of
the Code has not been served to the petitioners.
Thus, it the case of the petitioners that they had
never appeared before the respondent No.3 and
participated in the proceedings initiated at the
instance of respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 has
passed the impugned order in violation of principle
of natural justice. The petitioners have also raised
the said ground before the respondent No.2 as well as
the SSRD, however, both the higher revenue
authorities have not appreciated the said important
aspect and confirmed the order passed by the
respondent No.3. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi has also
verified the original record and proceedings and
fairly conceded before this Court by stating that
prima facie it seems that at the time of initiation
of the proceedings, the notice issued by the
respondent No.3 has not been served to the
petitioners and it might have been served to a third
party and therefore under the impression that the
notice issued to the petitioners has been served, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10032/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
respondent No.3 has proceeded further with the
hearing of the matter and passed the impugned order.
He, therefore, submits that appropriate order may be
passed.
4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, without
going into the merits of the matter and only on the
ground that the notice issued by respondent No.3 has
not been served to the petitioners and they have not
got any chance to put-up their case before the
concerned authority, the impugned orders passed by
the revenue authorities are hereby quashed and set
aside and matter is remanded back to respondent No.3
to decide it afresh in accordance with law, after
affording opportunity of hearing to all the affected
parties. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
