RAMESHBHAI LALLUBHAI PATEL (SINCE DECD.THRO'HIS HEIRS & vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9420 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAMESHBHAI LALLUBHAI PATEL (SINCE DECD.THRO'HIS HEIRS & &
ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BJ TRIVEDI(921) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.2,2,3,4
MS DEVYANI N DAVE(251) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS JIGNASA B TRIVEDI(3090) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1.1,1.2
MS HEMALI SONI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR UTPAL M PANCHAL(1075) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 15/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present petition under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners
have prayed for the following main relief:
“[a] to allow this petition and issue a writ
of certiorari or any other writ, order or
direction in the nature of writ, quashing and
setting aside the orders, bearing
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
TNC/Remand/Appeal No. 34/91, dated 14-6-1994,
passed by the respondent no. 2 and upheld by
the learned Member, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
in Revision Applications Nos. TEN. B. S.
149/94 and 153/94, decided on 10-7-1997 and
also, Review Application No. TEN: CS: 9/97 on
8-10-1999, so far as the same direct re-
allotment of the land in possession of the
petitioners;”
2. The case of the petitioners can be summarized in
a nutshell as under:
2.1. That land bearing Block No.30, admeasuring Acre
19 - 18 Guntha of Mouje Mandkol, Taluka Olpad,
District Surat (it shall hereinafter be referred to
as the ‘subject land’) was originally held by
respondent No.4 – Lakhiben, widow of Vithalbhai
Lalbhai. The respondent No.4 sold the subject land to
Rajaram Jaggannath Gupta and others by way of
executing a registered sale deed and accordingly
entry No.796 came to be mutated in the revenue record
on 02.10.1981. However, the said entry was cancelled.
Thereafter, once again, entry No.843 came to be
mutated, which was certified by the Circle Officer,
Olpad on 20.05.1985. As the subject land was sold to
the non-agriculturists in breach of the provisions of
Section 63 of The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1948 (it shall hereinafter be referred to
as the ‘Act’) the Deputy Collector, Olpad, took the
matter into suo motu revision and cancelled the
aforesaid entry No.843 vide order dated 27.10.1987
Page 2 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
passed in RTS/Revision/Reg.No.4/86 and directed the
Mamlatdar, Olpad to initiate the proceedings under
Section 84C of the Act.
2.2. Thereafter, the Additional Mamlatdar, Tenancy,
Choryasi, Surat, vide order dated 11.05.1988 passed
in Tenancy Case No.1/88/84C/Olpad, vested the subject
land in the Government on account of breach of
provisions of Section 63 of the Act by specifically
observing that if the land is to be restored to its
original status within 90 days, then the order will
not be implemented. However, as the seller and
purchasers have failed to comply with the aforesaid
order by restoring the subject land to its original
status within the time prescribed, the subject land
came to be forfeited and vested in the Government and
entry No.929 to that effect had also been mutated in
the revenue record on 24.01.1990.
2.3. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar, Olpad initiated the
proceedings under Section 32P of the Act by
publishing a public notice under Form XI, as
stipulated under Rule 21(1) of the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956 for sale of the
subject land. Thereafter, out of total land
admeasuring Acre 19 – 18 Guntha, land admeasuring 10
Acre had been sold to the President of Jay Mahakali
Bhatgam Dalit Khet Majoor Co-Op. Society, Bhatgam and
remaining parcel of land bearing Acre 9 and 18
Gunthas had been sold to the present petitioners by
Page 3 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
the the Mamlatdar, Olpad by passing order dated
13.06.1990.
2.4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
respondent No.4 – Lakhiben, through her Power of
Attorney Holder Paliben Hirabhai, had filed an appeal
before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department
(Appeals). However, the learned SSRD, vide order
dated 03.07.1990, remanded the matter back to the
Deputy Collector for deciding it afresh. Thereafter,
the Deputy Collector concerned had initiated the
proceedings by issuing notice to the concerned
parties and fixed the hearing of the matter. However,
as the post of the Deputy Collector concerned came to
be abolished, the matter was heard and decided by the
Collector, Surat and vide order dated 14.06.1994
passed in Tenancy/Remand/Appeal/34/91, the appeal
filed by the respondent No.4 – Lakhiben came to be
rejected by the Collector, Surat by confirming the
order dated 11.05.1988 passed by the Additional
Mamlatdar & ALT, Choryasi, Surat in Tenancy Case
No.1/88/84-C/Olpad and quashing and setting aside the
order dated 13.06.1990 passed by the Mamlatdar, Olpad
in TNC/32-P/Mandkol/90, and thereby, direction came
to be issued to the concerned revenue authority to
initiated the proceedings for selling the subject
land by once again issuing notice in accordance with
law.
2.5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated
Page 4 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
14.06.1994 passed by the Collector, the petitioners
and the President of Jay Mahakali Bhatgam Dalit Khet
Majoor Co-Op. Society, Bhatgam preferred two revision
applications being Revision Application
Nos.TEN:BS:149/94 and BS:153/94 before the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal. However, vide order dated
10.07.1997, the revision applications came to be
rejected by the GRT by upholding the order dated
14.06.1994 passed by the Collector.
2.6. Thereafter, the petitioners and the President of
Jay Mahakali Bhatgam Dalit Khet Majoor Co-Op.
Society, Bhatgam preferred review application under
Section 17 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957
before the GRT. However, vide order dated 08.10.1999,
the said review application also came to be rejected
by the GRT. Therefore, by way of preferring present
petition, the petitioners have assailed the orders
passed by the Collector as well as GRT.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. B. J. Trivedi for the
petitioners, learned AGP Ms.Hemali Soni for the
respondent authorities and learned advocate Mr.Utpal
M. Panchal for respondent No.4.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi has submitted that
petitioners are the bona fide owners and occupiers of
the subject land and they were granted the subject
land in the proceedings initiated at the instance of
the concerned revenue authority under the provisions
Page 5 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
of Section 32P of the Act. He further submitted that
initially the respondent No.4 herein had sold out the
subject land to the non-agriculturist and therefore
the concerned revenue authority had taken the matter
into suo motu revision and after scrutiny of the
materials and documents, the said authority jumped to
the conclusion that the transaction had been taken
place in contravention of Section 63 of the Act and
therefore direction came to be issued to the
Mamlatdar concerned to initiate the proceedings under
Section 84-C of the Act. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar
concerned, vide order dated 11.05.1988, vested the
subject land in the Government with the direction to
the parties concerned to restore the original
position of land within a period of 90 days so as to
make the order ineffective. However, the concerned
parties failed to comply with the aforesaid order and
did not restore the subject land to its original
position and therefore automatically the land came to
be vested in the Government.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that
thereafter the concerned revenue authority had
initiated the proceedings under Section 32P of the
Act and after following the due procedure as
prescribed in the Act itself, some portion of subject
land came to be granted in favour of the petitioners.
Thus, the petitioners are the bona fide owners and
occupiers of some portion of subject land, which is
granted to them in the proceedings initiated at the
Page 6 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
instance of the concerned and competent revenue
authority under Section 32P of the Act. He further
submitted that being aggrieved by the said order, the
respondent No.4 herein had preferred an appeal before
the learned SSRD. However, the learned SSRD had
remanded the matter back to the learned Deputy
Collector to decide it afresh. Thereafter, as the
post of the concerned Deputy Collector was abolished,
the matter was heard and decided by the Collector,
whereby, the Collector rejected the appeal of
respondent No.4 by upholding the order passed by the
Additional Mamlatdar concerned under Section 84C of
the Act and quashed and set aside the order of the
Mamlatdar concerned passed under Section 32P of the
Act and directed the concerned revenue authority to
dispose of the subject land in accordance with law by
once again issuing public notice. He submitted that
in fact there is no breach of terms and conditions of
the order passed by the Mamlatdar concerned, whereby,
the land is granted to the petitioners and therefore
the order passed by the Collector is illegal, unjust
and against the provisions of the law.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the
Collector, the petitioners have preferred revision
application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.
However, the said revision application also came to
be dismissed by the GRT and therefore petitioner
preferred a review application before the GRT.
Page 7 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
However, the said review application also came to be
rejected by the GRT. He submitted that at the time of
passing the impugned orders, the revenue authorities
concerned have not taken into consideration the
important aspect that the petitioners herein were
granted some portion of land by the competent
authority on certain terms and conditions and after
following due procedure as prescribed in the statute
itself and petitioners had not committed breach of
any of the conditions of allotment order. Thus, it
cannot be said that the initiation of the proceedings
at the instance of the Mamlatdar concerned is not in
consonance with the provisions of the Act itself and
it is not the case of the authority concerned that
there is any perversity on the part of the Mamlatdar
concerned in initiation of proceedings under Section
32P of the Act.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that it is an
admitted position of fact that in the proceedings
initiated at the instance of the respondent No.4
herein before the SSRD, the petitioners were not the
party to the said proceedings and without affording
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners,
straight way the order came to be passed by the SSRD
by remanding the matter back to the concerned revenue
authority for deciding it afresh. Thus, the said view
adopted by the concerned authority, prima facie,
seems to be in violation of principle of natural
justice. He further submitted that based upon the
Page 8 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
said order passed by the learned SSRD, the Collector
had initiated the proceedings by way of issuing show
cause notice to the parties and ultimately dismissed
the said appeal preferred by the respondent No.4 –
Lakhiben by upholding the order of the concerned
revenue authority passed under Sectin 84C of the Act
and quashing and setting aside the order of the
Mamlatdar concerned passed under Section 32P of the
Act. He has perused the impugned order passed by the
learned Collector and submitted that, if this Hon'ble
Court were to take even a cursory glance at the
observations and findings recorded therein, it would
become evident that nowhere in the entire order the
learned Collector has recorded any specific finding
that the proceedings initiated by the concerned
revenue authority under Section 32P of the Act were
contrary to or not in consonance with the statutory
provisions of the Act. Thus, in the absence of any
such finding, there was no basis for the learned
Collector to quash and set aside the order passed by
the Mamlatdar concerned under Section 32P of the Act.
8. Learned counsel further perused the order passed
by the Mamlatdar concerned under Section 32P of the
Act and submitted that if the Hon’ble Court would
make cursory glance upon the contents of the said
order, in that event, it would have been found out
that before passing the said order, the Mamlatdar
concerned has scrupulously followed the procedure
prescribed in the statute itself, and as such, no
Page 9 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
error of law and or facts could be said to have been
committed by the Mamlatdar concerned and therefore
the said order is required to be restored by way of
quashing and setting aside the particular
observations made by the learned Collector in the
impugned order and confirmed by the GRT in the
revision as well as review application.
9. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioner prayed that the present
petition be allowed by quashing and setting aside the
order dated 14.06.1994 passed by the learned
Collector, to the extent it quashes and sets aside
the order dated 13.06.1990 passed by the Mamlatdar,
Olpad. He further prayed that the orders passed by
the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the Revision
Application as well as the Review Application also be
quashed and set aside.
10. Per contra, learned AGP Ms. Soni has vehemently
objected present petition and submitted that from
bare perusal of the order of the Collector, it can
easily be culled out that the persons, who had
purchased the subject land from respondent No.4
herein by way of executing a registered sale deed,
were not the agriculturists and they had purchased
the agricultural land and therefore proceedings under
Section 84C of the Act have been initiated by the
concerned revenue authority and at the end of the
day, after completion of the said proceedings, the
Page 10 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
authority concerned jumped to the conclusion that the
agricultural land was sold to the non-agriculturists
and that too without obtaining prior sanction from
the competent revenue authority and therefore the
said transaction is in violation of Section 63 of the
Act and accordingly the same is required to be
declared as null and void and entry to that effect
has also been mutated in the revenue record. She
further submitted that the proceedings under Section
84C of the Act have been initiated qua the
agricultural land of an individual and involvement of
the tenant was not at all found in the said process
and therefore proceedings under Section 32P of the
Act cannot be initiated. She submitted that, as per
the statutory provisions of the Act, where any land
is forfeited and vested in the Government upon
completion of the proceedings under Section 84C, the
said land is required to be granted by following the
procedure prescribed under Section 84-C(4) of the
Act, and not by initiating proceedings under Section
32P of the Act. However, it is an admitted position
of fact that in the instant case, some portion of
subject land came to be granted to the petitioners by
way of proceedings under Section 32P of the Act and
therefore there was fundamental flaw on the part of
the authority concerned and as soon as those defects
have come to the notice of the Collector in the
appeal proceedings, the Collector quashed and set
aside the said order by directing the concerned
revenue authority to initiate the proceedings afresh
Page 11 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
after issuing public notice under Section 32P of the
Act in accordance with law. She, therefore, submitted
that the order of the Collector is just, fair and
legal and based upon the sound principle of law and
therefore the same is not interfered with by the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the revision as well as
review. She further submitted that the Collector as
well as the GRT have recorded concurrent findings of
fact and therefore this Court may not interfere with
the said concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
concerned revenue authorities.
11. Learned AGP Ms. Soni further submitted that
instead of initiating the proceedings under Section
84C(4) of the Act, the Mamlatdar concerned had
initiated the proceedings under Section 32P of the
Act for grant of the subject land. She, however,
fairly conceded before this Court that, while
initiating the procedure under Section 32P of the
Act, the Mamlatdar had duly complied with the
statutory requirements and followed the procedure
prescribed under the Act. She has also admitted that
there is no fault on the part of the petitioners in
participating the said proceedings. She has fairly
admitted that the Collector quashed and set aside the
order of the Mamlatdar by directing the Mamlatdar
concerned to once again initiate by and large the
same proceedings after issuing public notice under
Section 32P of the Act in accordance with law. She,
therefore, submitted that appropriate order may be
Page 12 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
passed.
12. Learned advocate Mr. Utpal Panchal for
respondent No.4 has adopted the arguments canvassed
by learned AGP Ms. Soni for the respondent
authorities and submitted that when the authorities
have recorded concurrent findings of fact,
interference at the hands of this Court is not
warranted. He, therefore, submitted that petition may
be dismissed.
13. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties and having perused the
material placed on record, it transpires that
respondent No. 4 had sold the subject land to non-
agriculturists, as a consequence of which proceedings
under Section 84C of the Act came to be initiated.
Upon conclusion of the said proceedings, the
competent authority passed an order vesting the
subject land in the Government, while granting an
opportunity to the persons concerned to restore the
original position within a period of 90 days, failing
which the order of vesting would take effect. Since
the concerned persons have not complied with the said
direction within the stipulated period, the subject
land ultimately stood vested in the Government.
Thereafter, the Mamlatdar had initiated the
proceedings under Section 32P of the Act for disposal
of the subject land and after following due procedure
prescribed in the Act, some portion of the subject
Page 13 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
land came to be granted in favour of the petitioners
on certain terms and conditions. Thus, since then the
petitioners are the occupants of some portion of
subject land. It is pertinent to note that it is not
the case of the respondent authorities that
petitioners have committed breach of any of the
conditions of allotment letter. It also transpires
from the record that being aggrieved by the said
order, the respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the
Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals)
without joining the petitioners as a party. However,
the learned SSRD remanded the matter back to the
concerned revenue authority for deciding it afresh.
Accordingly, the Collector issued notice to the
concerned parties and proceeded with the hearing of
the matter and ultimately rejected the appeal filed
by respondent No.4 herein. The Collector also upheld
the order passed by the concerned Mamlatdar under
Section 84C of the Act, whereas, quashed and set
aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar under Section
32P of the Act and directed the concerned authority
to initiate the proceeding for disposal of the
subject land in accordance with law by publishing a
fresh public notice. The said decision of the
Collector is confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal.
14. I have perused the order passed by the
Collector. A reading of the operative portion of the
said order reveals that the order passed by the
Page 14 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
Mamlatdar under Section 32P of the Act has been
quashed and set aside. The matter has been remanded
to the Mamlatdar with a direction to undertake the
proceedings afresh by issuing a fresh notice under
Section 32P of the Act and thereafter dispose of the
subject land on a permanent basis, in accordance with
law. I am unable to discern the reason that weighed
with the Collector in quashing the order passed by
the Mamlatdar and remanding the matter with a
direction to the concerned Mamlatdar to undertake the
very same exercise afresh, which had already been
duly undertaken by the Mamlatdar while passing the
original order. I have also gone through the order
passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. At the time
of confirming the decision of the Collector, the GRT
has made following observations:
“7. It transpires from above that the land
was held originally by Lakhiben who had not
got it under the provisions of the Tenancy Act
and so, the disposal of land for violation of
provisions of the Tenancy Act does not attract
Section 32P, which is rightly held so by the
Collector in his impugned order. As there is a
violation of provisions of Section 63, the
provisions of Section 84C are attracted and
so, the land which is vested in the State
Government has to be disposed of in accordance
with Section 84C(4) wherein priority list has
been laid down.”
15. Surprisingly, despite the aforesaid observations
made by the GRT, the order of the Collector has been
confirmed by the GRT without any modification in the
Page 15 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
operative part of the order of the Collector. Be that
as it may, the fact remains that the order passed by
the Collector, whereby, the matter has been remanded
to the Mamlatdar with a direction to undertake the
proceedings afresh by issuing a fresh notice under
Section 32P of the Act, is already confirmed by the
learned GRT despite the aforesaid clear cut
observations. Moreover, it is the case of the
petitioners that they are the occupiers of portion of
subject land since 1990 and they have not committed
breach of any of the conditions of the allotment
letter. Moreover, a detailed report is also called
for from the respondent authority by this Court to
ascertain the possession of the property,
consequently, a Panchnama is carried out by the
concerned revenue authority and placed on record,
which clearly goes on to show that the petitioners
are in possession of the portion of the subject land.
It is also found out from the record that the land is
granted to the petitioners in the proceedings
initiated at the instance of the concerned revenue
authority under Section 32P of the Act and they are
the occupant and in possession of the portion of the
subject land since last more than 36 years. It is
also found out from the record that the respondent
No.4 – original land owner has not preferred any
revision before the competent revenue authority
challenging the order of the Collector, whereby, her
appeal came to be rejected by the Collector. However,
being aggrieved by the said order of the Collector,
Page 16 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
petitioners herein have preferred revision
application before the GRT, which came to be
dismissed by the GRT. Learned advocate Mr. Panchal
for the respondent No.4 – original land owner has
also not placed any document on record which suggests
that the original land owner has challenged the order
of the Collector before any higher forum. Thus, so
far as the order of the Collector qua rejecting the
appeal of the original land owner is concerned, it
attains finality. Now, at this juncture, if the
operative part of the order of the GRT is to be seen,
in that event, it would have been found out that by
describing the statutory provisions of law and the
faulty procedure adopted by the concerned revenue
authority, the GRT has dismissed the revision
applications and confirmed the order passed by the
Collector. As such, the GRT has to modify the
operative part of the order of the Collector,
whereby, direction came to be issued to the concerned
Mamlatdar to once again undertake the same procedure
based on which the order of the Mamlatdar passed
under Section 32P of the Act has been quashed by the
Collector. Moreover, as observed hereinabove, the
petitioners have participated in the proceedings
initiated by the Mamlatdar under Section 32P of the
Act. Thus, I am of the considered view that the
petitioners are not at fault and they are the bona
fide purchasers and in occupation and possession of
the subject land since last more than 36 years and
therefore now at this belated stage, for initiation
Page 17 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/9420/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
of the so-called faulty proceedings at the instance
of the concerned revenue authority, the petitioners,
who are the bona fide purchasers, cannot be punished.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the
opinion of this Court, no purpose would be served in
once again directing the Mamlatdar concerned to
undertake the proceeding by issuing fresh notice
under Section 32P of the Act, especially when the
said exercise is already undertaken by the Mamlatdar
concerned after following due procedure prescribed in
the statute itself. Thus, in view of the aforesaid
peculiar facts of the present case, the petition is
required to be allowed. Accordingly, petition is
allowed. The order dated 08.10.1999 passed by the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in review application, order
dated 16.07.1999 passed by the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal in the revision applications as well as
order dated 14.06.1994 passed by the Collector, Surat
to the extent of quashing and setting aside the order
dated 13.06.1990 passed by the Mamlatdar, Olpad and
remanding the matter back to the concerned Mamlatdar
for disposing of the subject land by once again
issuing notice under Section 32P of the Act, are
hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
Page 18 of 18
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 15:09:44 IST 2026