BHARATKUMAR VENILAL DOSHI vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/8182/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240414072012)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8182 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
BHARATKUMAR VENILAL DOSHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DHARMESH V SHAH(1050) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. STUTI Y JANI(6742) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNJ KANARA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 12/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs.
“(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to Admit and Allow this petition;
(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated
06.1.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 (Annexure-A) and allow the
revision no 164 of 2011 and further be pleased to restore the nature of the
land in question as old"A" tenure land as the same has been converted
without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner;
(C) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that
Page 1 of 12
Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 19:41:23 IST 2026
C/SCA/8182/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240414072012)
refusing to enter the name of the petitioner in the Property Card vide order
dated 20.1.2009 maintained by the respondent No.4 is arbitrary, illegal,
unjust and in violation of principle of natural justice especially when the
petitioner had purchased the land in question by a registered sale deed and
further be pleased to pass an order entering the name of the petitioner in
the property card maintained by the City Survey Office, Palitana, in the
interest of justice;
(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your
Lordship be pleased to stay the operation and/or implementation and/or
execution of the order dated dated 06.1.2012 passed by the respondent
No.1 (Annexure-A) and further be pleased to restrain the respondents, its
officers, agents and servants entering any other names with regard to the
property in question in the Property Card maintained by the respondent
No.4 in the interest of justice;
(E) Your Lordship be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may
be deemed fit, just and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case.”
2. Heard learned Mr. Dharmesh V. Shah for the petitioner
and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara
for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under
3.1. The petitioner purchased “A” tenure land bearing City
Survey No.5371, Tika No.73 situated at Junadarbargardh in
City-Palitana by a registered sale deed dated 15.07.1985 bearing
Registration No.701 of 1985 from His Highness Maharaja Shri
Shivendrasinhji Bahadursinhji Gohil at Palitana. The sale deed
Page 2 of 12
Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 19:41:23 IST 2026
C/SCA/8182/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240414072012)
was kept pending for the deficit stamp duty and the authority
issued certificate regarding acceptance of sale deed on
27.11.2006 under Section 32(C) of the Bombay Stamp Act. The
petitioner on 11.12.2008 filed an application to City Survey
Office to enter his name in property card. On 20.01.2009, the
application came to be rejected relying upon the order passed by
learned Collector dated 12.03.1987. As per order dated
12.03.1987, the land was converted from old “A” tenure into
new “K” tenure. On 16.10.2011, petitioner moved an application
with an application for condonation of delay challenging the
order dated 12.03.1987 before learned SSRD, Ahmedabad. On
the ground of delay, revision of petitioner came to be rejected
vide order dated 06.01.2012.
3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order,
the present petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that old “A”
tenure land was purchased by petitioner by a registered sale
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 19:41:23 IST 2026
C/SCA/8182/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240414072012)
deed dated 15.07.1985 from His Highness Maharaja Shri
Shivendrasinhji Bahadursinhji Gohil at Palitana. The land was
given to His Highness Maharaja Shri Shivendrasinhji
Bahadursinhji Gohil at Palitana on 04.12.1985 as an owner by
the order of learned Deputy Collector, Palitana. Thereafter,
without issuing any notice to the present petitioner, on
12.03.1987, the learned Collector, Bhavnagar passed an order
converting the said land from old “A” tenure into new “K”
tenure land. The registered sale deed dated 15.07.1985 was
cleared from deficit stamp duty on 27.11.2006 and thereafter,
present petitioner on 11.12.2008 made a request to the learned
City Survey Office to enter his name in the property card. On
20.01.2009, the application came to be rejected by relying the
order dated 12.03.1987. It is further submitted that learned
Collector had no authority to convert the old “A” tenure land
into new “K” tenure land in the background of the fact that by
an order dated 04.12.1985, the land was declared to be the
ownership of His Highness Maharaja Shri Shivendrasinhji
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 19:41:23 IST 2026
C/SCA/8182/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240414072012)
Bahadursinhji Gohil at Palitana. The present petitioner
approached learned SSRD being CTS Revision Application
No.157 of 2011 with application for condonation of delay. The
learned SSRD gravely erred in rejecting the application for
condonation of delay.
4.1. It is further submitted that the petitioner had purchased an
old “K” tenure land before 30 years which belonged to a private
party. The learned Collector, Bhavnagar while converting the
land from old “A” tenure to new “K” tenure brushed aside the
fact that the ownership belonged to a private person and the sale
of land is of an old tenure land. Except above, no other
submissions are canvassed by learned advocate for the
petitioner.
5. Per contra , learned AGP has supported the impugned
order and relied upon the averments made in the affidavit-in-
reply. It is submitted by learned AGP that the subject land is
Page 5 of 12
Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 19:41:23 IST 2026
C/SCA/8182/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240414072012)
situated within revenue limits of Palitana was originally entered
in the name of His Highness Maharaja Shri Shivendrasinhji
Bahadursinhji Gohil at Palitana and it was recorded as old “A”
tenure land. The respondent authority noticed that the land in
question formed the part of Darbargarh and on inventory it was
held that the title of property be vested in X Ruler with
condition of new and inalienable tenure attached. The learned
Collector, Bhavnagar issued a show cause notice 13.01.1987 to
His Highness Maharaja Shri Shivendrasinhji Bahadursinhji
Gohil to take the order dated 04.10.1985 passed by Deputy
Collector, Palitana in revision. Despite receipt of the show cause
notice, His Highness Maharaja Shri Shivendrasinhji
Bahadursinhji Gohil at Palitana did not remain present before
the authority. Resultantly, learned Collector on 12.03.1987
passed an order holding the tenure of land as a new and
inalienable tenure. The land in question was sold to petitioner by
inalienable tenure on 15.07.1985. However, the sale deed was
released by Stamp Valuation Department on 27.11.2006. The
Page 6 of 12
Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 19:41:23 IST 2026
C/SCA/8182/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240414072012)
application for mutation of name in property card was made by
petitioner on 11.12.2018 which came to be rejected by City
Survey Office on 20.01.2009. The petitioner did not assail the
rejection of his application by way of any appeal to the superior
authority. The petitioner, thereafter, remained inactive and in the
year 2011, challenged the order dated 12.03.1987 with an
application for condonation of delay before learned Secretary,
Revenue Department (Appeals) Ahmedabad, who rejected the
revision application vide order dated 06.01.2012 on the ground
of delay. The petitioner did not inform the authorities regarding
purchase of land by a registered sale deed dated 15.07.1985. It is
further submitted that there is no explanation canvassed by the
petitioner for condoning the delay of 24 years. Learned SSRD
on finding no sufficient cause for a gross delay, rejected revision
without entering into the merits. It is further submitted that the
order dated 12.03.1987 was recorded in property card on
10.04.1987. Therefore, on the ground of gross delay, the
revision has rightly been rejected and there is no need to
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 19:41:23 IST 2026
C/SCA/8182/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240414072012)
interfere in the order passed by learned SSRD. Except above, no
other submissions are canvassed by learned AGP for the
respondents.
6. I have heard the submissions made by learned advocates
for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner claims to
have purchased old “A” tenure land by a registered sale deed on
15.07.1985 from His Highness Maharaja Shri Shivendrasinhji
Bahadursinhji Gohil. However, the document of sale was not
registered for deficit stamp duty and by a certificate regarding
acceptance on 27.11.2006, the document of sale was registered.
The petitioner on 11.12.2008 moved an application to City
Survey Office for entering his name in property card. The
application came to be rejected on 20.01.2009 on the ground
that the learned Collector by an order dated 12.03.1987
converted old “A” tenure land into new “K” tenure land. After
rejection of the application in the year 2009, petitioner did not
take any further action challenging rejection of his request of
mutation of his name in City Survey Record. By Entry No.5371,
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 19:41:23 IST 2026
C/SCA/8182/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240414072012)
on 17.04.1987, the change in the nature of tenure of land was
mutated in Revenue Record. By converting the land into new
“K” tenure land, a restriction was imposed from transferring the
land without prior permission of Collector. Before passing the
order dated 12.03.1987, a notice to the predecessor-in-title of the
petitioner was issued on 13.01.1987. The predecessor-in-title of
petitioner did not appear and contest the show cause notice and
in absence of any grievance, learned Collector, Bhavnagar
passed an order of conversion of land into new “K” tenure land.
The sale deed of petitioner dated 15.07.1985 was kept pending
for the recovery of deficit stamp duty. On 27.11.2006, a
certificate was issued under Section 32(C) of the Bombay Stamp
Act and the documents were accepted by the Sub-Registrar. Till
2006, petitioner never disclosed before any Revenue Authorities
regarding purchase of disputed land. It is the responsibility of
the petitioner to intimate Revenue Authorities regarding transfer
of subject land so that any proceedings are initiated, petitioner
can be informed by serving a notice. Upon receiving rejection
Page 9 of 12
Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 19:41:23 IST 2026
C/SCA/8182/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240414072012)
order of City Survey Office dated 20.01.2009, petitioner did not
take the issue of non-mutation of his name in City Survey
Record by filing appropriate appeal. Thus, in 2009, petitioner
got the knowledge about the passing of order dated 12.03.1987.
In the year 2011, petitioner, all of a sudden, invoked Section 211
of Land Revenue Code and prayed for cancellation of order
dated 12.03.1987 and prayed declaration that the land be
declared as an old tenure land. The challenge before learned
SSRD regarding order dated 12.03.1987 in the year 2011 is
grossly time-barred. If the application for condonation of delay
is perused, no cause, much less, sufficient cause, is made out for
delayed challenge. The petitioner was required to explain the
period of delay instead made a very causal statement that upon
inquiry made regarding mutation of his name in property card,
petitioner came to know that the reason for rejection for his
application is impugned order dated 12.03.1987. Be that it may
be. While considering any application for condonation of delay,
the Court / Tribunal / Revenue Authorities must be satisfied
Page 10 of 12
Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 19:41:23 IST 2026
C/SCA/8182/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240414072012)
with the reason of delay. The important criteria for deciding any
application for condonation of delay is the explanation tendered
for the delay. The longer the period of delay strong explanations
are required. A casual statement, such as the one which is made
in the present case by the petitioner in the revision proceedings,
is not a sufficient cause for condoning huge delay. Moreover,
from the year 1985 till 2006, the petitioner did not care to get his
sale deed cleared from the Stamp Valuation Office. The learned
SSRD in the order impugned has discussed the question of delay
and on not being satisfied with the explanation, rejected the
revision application at the admission stage. Learned advocate
for the petitioner, before this Court also did not make any
submission on the point of delay. No submissions have been
canvassed by learned advocate for the petitioner as to how and
in which manner, the revision before learned SSRD is not hit by
delay.
7. Thus, considering the overall factual aspect of the matter
and in wake of the fact that the petitioner has challenged the
Page 11 of 12
Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 19:41:23 IST 2026
C/SCA/8182/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240414072012)
order dated 12.03.1987 after a period of 24 years in the year
2011, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by
learned SSRD as the same is in consonance with the settled
proposition of law on the question of delay. Resultantly, the
present petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.
Original Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Authority forthwith. The photocopy of Record and Proceedings
be placed on record.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
RINKU MALI
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 19:41:23 IST 2026