VINUBHAI MANGALBHAI SHAH vs DISTRICT COLLECTOR - SURENDRANAGAR

Court: Gujarat High Court
Case type: SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION
Decided on: 25-03-2026

<div> C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 Reserved On : 29/01/2026 Pronounced On : 25/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2876 of 2014 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2018 (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2876 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2919 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6700 of 2016 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/- ======================================================= </div><table><thead><tr><th>Approved for Reporting</th><th>Yes</th><th>No</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>-</td><td>√</td></tr></tbody></table><div> VINUBHAI MANGALBHAI SHAH Versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR - SURENDRANAGAR & ORS. ======================================================= Appearance: Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 :- MR BB NAIK, Sr. Adv. with MR PARTHIV A BHATT(5331) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR JAY TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 MR DILIP B RANA(691) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5 Special Civil Application No.2919/2014 :- MR BB NAIK, Sr. Adv. with MR PARTHIV A BHATT(5331) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR JAY TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 MR SATYAM CHHAYA for the Respondent(s) No. 10 Special Civil Application No.6700/2016 :- MR GM AMIN for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR JAY TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 MR DILIP B RANA(691) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ======================================================= Page 1 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 </div><table><thead><tr><th>CORAM:</th><th>HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> CAV JUDGMENT 1. Since all these matters are arising out of the common issues, they were being heard together and are being decided by this common CAV judgment. 2. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the parties waive service of notice of rule. 3. Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provision of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “Ordinance, 1949” for short” with following reliefs, “[A] xxx xxx xxx. [B] YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the revenue authorities, including the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to initiate any further proceedings under Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance, 1949 against the petitioner for purchase or sale of lands by him after the year 1966. [C] YOUR LORDSHIPs may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directing quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Page 2 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 Collector, Surendranagar in Gharkhed Ordinance Appeal No.31/2010 [Annexure-E]; order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector, Patadi in Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.3/12-13 [Annexure-G]; and the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector, Patadi in Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.2/12/13 [Annexure-H]. [D] xxx xxx xxx 9. It is further prayed that during the admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay and suspend the implementation, execution and operation of the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar in Gharkhed Ordinance Appeal No.31/2010 [Annexure-E]; order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector, Patadi in Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.3/12-13 [Annexure-G]; and order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector, Patadi in Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.2/12-13 [Annexure- H] by appropriate interim stay order.” 4. Special Civil Application No.2919/2014 has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provision of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as “Revenue Code” for short” with following reliefs, “(A) xxx xxx xxx. (B) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ Page 3 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the learned Secretary (Appeals) vide order No.MVV/Ghatkhed/SNR/2/2010 and further be pleased to allow the said revision application and set aside the orders dated 19.12.2009 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar and order dated 09.06.2009 passed by the Deputy Collector, Dhrangdhra for the reasons stated in the memo of petition and in the interest of justice. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to stay and suspend the implementation, execution and operation of the judgment and order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the learned Secretary (Appeals) vide order No.MVV/Ghatkhed/SNR/2/2010; and orders dated 19.12.2009 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar and order dated 09.06.2009 passed by the Deputy Collector, Dhrangdhra and restrain the authorities from making any entries in the revenue record pursuant to the aforesaid orders pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition. (D) xxx xxx xxx. (E) xxx xxx xxx. (F) xxx xxx xxx.” 5. Special Civil Application No.6700/2016 has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and Page 4 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provision of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “Ordinance, 1949” for short” with following reliefs, “A) xxx xxx xxx. B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by learned Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No.8 of 2012 dated 15.2.2016 in the interest of justice C) Be pleased to stay execution, implementation and operation of the impugned orders passed by learned Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Appln.No.8 of 2012 dated 15.2.2016 during pending hearing and final disposal of this petition in the interest of justice. D) xxx xxx xxx.” 6. The brief facts Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 in nutshell are as under, 6.1 The petitioner viz., Vinubhai Mangalbhai Shah applied before the Collector, Surendranagar for issuance of certificate holding him to be an agriculturist and pursuant thereto, on 30.04.1966, the Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra issued certificate under Section 54(1) read with Rule 18(i) of the Ordinance, 1949. Page 5 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 6.2 On the strength of the said certificate, the petitioner purchased land bearing Survey No.115 admeasuring 5 Acres 21 Gunthas situated in Village : Metasar, Taluka : Dasera, District : Surendranagar (hereinafter referred to as “the land in question” for short) from one Harijan Mulabhai Ramabhai by way of executing registered sale deed and pursuant to the said registered sale deed, Entry No.140 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 05.10.1966 and subsequently certified also on 09.06.1967. Not only that, on the strength of the said certificate, the petitioner herein had also purchased various parcels of land in Dasera Taluka of Surendranagar district. 6.3 The Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra issued show cause notice on 01.12.1984 upon the petitioner under Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949 to show cause as to why the land in question should not be confiscated and as to why he should not be evicted from the land in question on the ground that the though the petitioner is not an agriculturist, he has purchased the said land in question. 6.4 On receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted detailed reply along with necessary documents including the registered sale deed for the purchase of the Page 6 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 land after he became the agriculturist on the basis of the certificate issued by the Deputy Collector. 6.5 The Deputy Collector, after considering the documents produced by the petitioner including the certificate, dropped the aforesaid proceedings by an order dated 06.02.1985. 6.6 Thereafter, the petitioner had also purchased land bearing Survey No.632/1 pk. admeasuring 5 Acre 37 Guntha from one Punjabhai Mithabhai (the predecessor in title of the respondent no.3) by executing registered sale deed and pursuant thereto, Entry No.2396 came to be mutated in the revenue record in the year 1988-89. 6.7 Despite above facts, the Deputy Collector again issued show cause notice upon the petitioner on 10.08.2006 under Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949 to show cause as to why the land bearing Survey No.632/1 pk. should not be confiscated and as to why he should not be evicted from the said land. 6.8 On receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner had again submitted his detailed reply on 21.09.2006 along with all required material and evidence. 6.9 After considering the material and evidence produced by the petitioner along with the Page 7 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 reply, the Deputy Collector, by an order dated 31.03.2010, had withdrawn the said notice issued for the land bearing Survey No.632/1 pk. 6.10 However, the heirs of said Punjabhai Mithabhai viz., Govindbhai i.e. the respondent no.3 herein had challenged the aforesaid order before the Collector, Surendranagar by filing Appeal being Gharkhed Ordinance Appeal No.3/2010. 6.11 Pending above numbered appeal, the petitioner herein sold the said land to one Rajesh Jayantilal Shah by way of executing registered sale deed dated 27.08.2010. 6.12 The Collector allowed the aforesaid Appeal by quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the Deputy Collector and thereby directed that the land bearing Survey No.632/1 pk. be entered into in the name of Government. 6.13 In the meantime, the petitioner herein had transferred land bearing Survey Nos.102 pk.2 & 102 pk.3 in favour of his daughter and grandson viz., Smitaben Hemendra Maniyar and Setul Hemendra Maniyar and pursuant thereto, entry came to be mutated. 6.14 Aforesaid order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Collector was challenged by one Rajeshkumar Jayantilal, who is subsequent purchaser (the petitioner of Special Civil Page 8 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 Application No.6700/2016), before the learned SSRD by filing Revision Application No.MVV/ Gharkhed/ SNR/8/2012, wherein the learned SSRD directed the parties to maintain status quo. 6.15 However despite an order of status quo, the Deputy Collector in another proceeding being Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.3/12-13, by an order dated 20.02.2013, directed the authority concerned to evict Smitaben Hemendra Maniyar and Setul Hemendra Maniyar from the land bearing Survey No.102 pk.2, who are the daughter and grandson of the petitioner. 6.16 Not only that in another proceeding being Gharkhed Ordinance No.2/2012-13, the Deputy Collector by an order dated 20.02.2013, held that the transfer of the land by the petitioner in favour of his daughter is illegal and thereby directed the authority concerned authority to remove them from the land bearing Survey No.102 pk.3. 6.17 Therefore against the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector, Patadi in Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.3/12-13; the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector, Patadi in Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.2/12-13 and the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar in Gharkhed Ordinance Appeal No.3/2010, the Page 9 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 aforesaid writ petition has been preferred. 7. The brief facts Special Civil Application No.2919/2014 in nutshell are as under, 7.1 The petitioner viz., Ramniklal Mangaldas Shah purchased land bearing Survey Nos.782 pk., 739, 422, 959, 957 and 958 situated in the sim of Village : Dasada, District : Surendranagar by way of executing registered sale deed and pursuant thereto, Entry Nos.1350, 1446, 1472 and 2537 were mutated in the revenue record. 7.2 Out of aforesaid lands, the petitioner had sold out land bearing Survey No.422 to his brother, Vinubhai Mangaldas Shah by way of executing registered sale deed and pursuant thereto, Entry No.2683 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 27.06.1988. whereas land bearing Survey Nos.956, 957 and 958 had been sold out to one Jahiruddin Usmankhanji by way of executing registered sale deed and pursuant thereto, Entry No.4080 came to be mutated in the revenue record. 7.3 However subsequently, the learned Mamlatdar, Surendranagar submitted a report to the learned Assistant Collector, Dhrangadhra on 01.11.1987 inter alia stating that Entry No.2537 dated 01.10.1985 mutated in respect of land bearing Survey Nos.956, 957 and 958 certified on 24.11.1985 is against the provision of the Section 75 of the Ordinance, Page 10 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 1949 and on the basis of the said report, inquiry was initiated and it was decided by an order dated 31.12.1988 that the transfer of the land bearing Survey Nos.956, 957 and 958 is against the provision of the Ordinance, 1949 and in violation of Section 54 of the Ordinance, 1949 and thereby it was ordered to evict the petitioner from the said land under Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949. 7.4 Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the learned Collector, who by an order dated 18.05.1991 rejected the said Appeal. 7.5 Against the said order of the learned Collector, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the Hon’ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad, who by an order dated 25.09.2000 remanded the matter back to the learned Deputy Collector for deciding it afresh, however despite specific direction to decide afresh on merits, the learned Deputy Collector, by an order dated 09.06.2009, turned down the request of the petitioner by confirming his earlier order dated 31.12.1998. 7.6 Against the aforesaid order, Appeal being Gharkhed/Ord/ Appeal Case No.1/2009-10 was preferred before the learned Collector, who by an order dated 19.12.2009, rejected the said appeal. Page 11 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 7.7 Against the aforesaid orders of the revenue authorities, the petitioner preferred Revision Application before the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code along with stay application, however, the said stay came to be rejected by an order dated 09.07.2010. 7.8 Against the said order rejecting stay application, writ petition being Special Civil Application No.624/2011 was preferred, however, the said writ petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 18.02.2011 with a direction to the learned SSRD to decide the main Revision Application within a period of three months. 7.9 However without properly considering the facts of the case, the learned SSRD, by impugned order dated 13.05.2011, rejected the said Revision Application. Hence, aforesaid writ petition has been preferred. 8. The brief facts Special Civil Application No.6700/2016 in nutshell are as under, 8.1 The petitioner viz., Rajeshkumar Jayantilal Shah had purchased the land bearing Survey No.632/1 situated in the sim of Village : Dasada (Patadi), Taluka : Dasada, District : Surendranagar from one Vinubhai Mangalji Shah by way of executing registered sale deed on 27.08.2010 and pursuant thereto, Entry Page 12 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 No.6509 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 30.09.2010. 8.2 However prior thereto, a show cause notice came to be issued under Section 54 of the Ordinance, 1949 on 16.09.2006 upon the original land owner, wherein detailed objections have been filed by the original land owner, Vinubhai Shah and others and having considered the said objections, the learned Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra had taken decision to withdraw the said notice. 8.3 However the aforesaid order was challenged by the heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhai viz., Govindbhai Punjabhai by filing Appeal No.31/2010 before the learned Collector, Surendranagar contending inter alia that at the time of purchase of the land, the said Vinubhai Mangalbhai Shah was not an agriculturist. However without properly considering the facts of the case, the learned Collector allowed the said appeal by an order dated 29.09.2011. 8.4 Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No.8/2012 before the learned Special Secretary (Revenue Department), which came to be rejected by an order dated 15.02.2016. Hence, aforesaid writ petition has been preferred. 9. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. B.B. Naik assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Parthiv Bhatt Page 13 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate, Mr. Dilip Rana for the respondent nos.3 to 5 in Special Civil Application No.2876/2014; learned Senior Counsel, Mr. B.B. Naik assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Parthi Bhath for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate, Mr. Satyam Chhaya for the respondent no.3 in Special Civil Application No.2919/2014; and learned advocate, Mr. G.M. Amin for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate, Mr. Dilip Rana for the respondent nos.3 to 5 in Special Civil Application No.6700/2016. 10. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik appearing for the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 referred to the facts of the case as stated above and submitted that the petitioner had applied before the office of the Collector, Surendranagar to issue certificate holding that the petitioner is an agriculturist and pursuant thereto, the learned Deputy Collector granted such certificate on 30.04.1966 on certain terms and conditions and pursuant thereto, the petitioner had purchased land bearing Survey No.115 by way of executing registered sale deed and on the basis of the said registered sale deed, Entry No.140 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 05.10.1966, which was subsequently certified on 09.06.1967. He Page 14 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 submitted that not only that, on the basis of the said certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, he had entered into various transactions and purchased different parcels of land by way of executing registered sale deed. He submitted that however to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, the learned Deputy Collector had issued show cause notice under Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949 upon the petitioner on 01.12.1984 to show cause as to why the land purchased by him should not be vested into Government and he should not be evicted from the said land on the ground that though the petitioner was not an agriculturist, he has purchased the said land and on receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply along with necessary documents and after considering the said set of documents produced by the petitioner, the proceedings initiated by the revenue authority by issuing notice under Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949 has been dropped on 06.12.1985. He submitted that thereafter in the year 1988-89, the petitioner had purchased another parcel of land bearing Survey No.632/1 pk. admeasuring 5 Acre 37 Guntha from Punjabhai Mithabhai, who is predecessor in title of the respondent no.3 and pursuant thereto, Entry No.2396 came to be mutated in the revenue record. He submitted that however thereafter also, for the very same ground, notice came to be issued upon Page 15 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 the petitioner by the learned Deputy Collector under Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949 alleging inter alia that though the petitioner is not an agriculturist, he had purchased the land and on receipt of the said notice, the petitioner again submitted his detailed reply and after considering the same, the said proceedings have been dropped by the learned Deputy Collector. He submitted that however being aggrieved by the said decision of dropping the proceedings against the petitioner, the respondent no.3 herein had preferred Appeal before the learned Collector, who by an order dated 29.09.2011 allowed the said Appeal by quashing and setting aside the order of the learned Deputy Collector and also directed that the said land should be vested to the Government. He, however, submitted that in the interregnum period i.e. on 27.08.2010, the said land has been sold to one Rajeshbhai Shah by way of executing registered sale deed, therefore, the said Rajeshbhai had challenged the said order of the learned Collector before the learned SSRD by filing Revision Application, however, the said Revision application came to be dismissed, however during the pendency of the said revision application, there was an order of status quo to be maintained by the parties, passed by the learned SSRD, however despite the said fact, the learned Deputy Collector had initiated proceedings under the Page 16 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 Ordinance, 1949 and passed an order directing to evict the petitioner from the said land, therefore being aggrieved by the said decision, the present petition has been preferred. 11. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that the agricultural certificate has been issued by the competent authority in favour of the petitioner with certain terms and conditions and entry to that effect was also effected in the revenue record. He submitted that one of the conditions imposed upon the petitioner while issuing said certificate was to the effect that within a period of one year, the petitioner has to purchase the land and accordingly on the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner had purchased different parcels of land and entries to that effect were also mutated in the revenue records. He submitted that as stated above, twice the proceedings under the Ordinance, 1949 were initiated against the petitioner, however, those proceedings have been dropped by the revenue authority after considering the material placed along with reply submitted by the petitioner, however, being aggrieved by last decision taken by the authority dropping the proceedings against the petitioner, the respondent no.3 had preferred Appeal before the learned Collector, who allowed the said Appeal, therefore, the present petition has been preferred. He has taken me through the Page 17 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 observations given by the learned Collector at the time of allowing the Appeal and submitted that at the time of passing said order, the learned Collector was of the opinion that before entering into transaction of land, the petitioner has to obtain prior permission from the competent authority and, therefore, he cannot be treated as an agriculturist. He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court has time and again in numerous case laws have held that suo motu powers can be initiated within reasonable time and admittedly here in the present case on hand, such powers have been exercised by the revenue authority after a period of more than 21 years and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that such powers have been exercised by the revenue authority within reasonable time, therefore, the said view adopted by the revenue authority is unjust, illegal and against the settled proposition of law and, therefore, the orders of the learned Collector as well as the learned SSRD are required to be quashed and set aside. 12. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik submitted that so far as the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2919/2014 is concerned, it is submitted that the grandfather of the petitioner was an agriculturist and during the period between 1969 to 1988, the said petitioner has purchased several parcels of land by way of executing registered Page 18 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 sale deed and entries to that effect were also mutated in the revenue record and out of those purchased land, the said petitioner had sold the land bearing Survey No.422 to his brother, Vinubhai Shah (who is the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2876/2014) and Entry No.2683 to that effect was also mutated in the revenue record on 27.06.1988 and so far as the land bearing Survey Nos.956, 957 and 958 are concerned, the said lands were sold to one Jahiruddin Usmankhanji by executing registered sale deed and pursuant thereto, Entry No.4080 came to be mutated in the revenue record. He, however, submitted that the Mamlatdar submitted report in respect of entry mutated in connection with the land bearing Survey Nos.956, 957 and 958 against the provision of Section 65 of the Ordinance, 1945, wherein the proceedings had undertaken and ultimately at the end of day, an order of eviction came to be passed by the Deputy Collector, which was challenged before the Collector, who remanded the matter back, however on remand, the Deputy Collector again confirmed his earlier order, which was challenged before the Collector and, thereafter, learned SSRD, however, the request of the petitioner has been turned down by impugned orders, therefore, the aforesaid petition has been preferred. 13. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik submitted that in fact, the said petitioner, Ramniklal Shah is the Page 19 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 bonafide purchaser of the said lands and pursuant to registered sale deed, entries were mutated, however after long period of time, suo motu proceedings have been undertaken against the petitioner, wherein an order of eviction has been passed. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the various judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered and in view of the ratio laid down in those decisions, the present petition may be allowed and the entry may be restored. 14. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik relied upon the decision of this Hon’ble Court delivered in Special Civil Application No.6935/1988 on 07.09.2005 (in case of Shah Prakashkumar Padamshi Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.) essentially on the ground that there was gross delay in initiation of the suo motu proceedings and the Coordinate Bench of this Court had exercised the discretion in favour of the said petitioner and thereby allowed the said writ petition by quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities. He submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered as per the principle laid down by the Coordinate Bench in the said case. He further submitted that the order of the learned Collector is directly challenged by the petitioner before this Court instead of challenging it before the learned SSRD as the Page 20 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 revenue authority had abused the process of law by exercising excessive powers against the petitioner by issuing show cause notice despite the fact that at earlier point of time, the proceedings have been initiated and those proceedings have been dropped by the competent authority, therefore, the principle of constructive res judicate would be applicable to the facts of the present case, therefore, the present petition requires to be decided on merits. 15. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., reported in (2007) 11 SCC 363 and submitted that the question of limitation being jurisdictional question, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. He submitted that if the Hon’ble Court would make cursory glance upon the ratio laid down in the said decision, in that event, it is found out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the position of law in a very succinct manner by observing that in absence of any statutory limitation, the power of suo motu revision is exercisable only within a reasonable period and what would be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors. 16. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik submitted that in Page 21 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 fact, the petitioner herein had become “agriculturist” on the strength of certificate issued by the competent revenue authority and based upon which, he had entered into certain transactions by way of executing registered sale deed and indulged himself into agricultural activities and, thereafter after certain period of time, he had transferred certain parcels of land in favour of his daughter and grandson and by sI2I lI3Ina varsdaro virtue of his legal heirs ( ), the daughter and the grandson would automatically become “agriculturist”. He submitted that in fact, with a sole intent to defeat the rights of the petitioner as an agriculturist, the order of the Deputy Collector was challenged by the respondent no.3 herein before the learned Collector, who quashed and set aside the said order, which resulted into filing of present petition directly before this Ho’ble Court as there is clearly violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India in view of the fact that earlier twice, the proceedings initiated by the learned Deputy Collector have been dropped by him considering the documentary evidence and material available on record and, thereafter, an order of eviction came to be passed against the daughter and grandson of the petitioner from the land, therefore, the aforesaid writ petition has been preferred inter alia praying for quashment of the impugned orders. Page 22 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 17. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik has relied upon following decisions, (1) the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., reported in (2007) 11 SCC 363; (2) the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Std. Rama Dubey (dead) By L.Rs. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors., reported in AIR 1995 SC 1010; (3) the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of L. Hriday Narain Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly, reported in AIR 1971 SC 33; (4) the decision of this Hon’ble Court in case of Pravinkumar Vrajlal Sedani Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2025 (3) GLR 2086; (5) the decision of this Hon’ble Court in case of Bharatbhai Naranbhai Vegda Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2016 (2) GLR 1021; (6) the decision of this Hon’ble Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Amrutlal Hansrajbhai & Ors., reported in 2007 (3) GLH 743; 18. Referring to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid decisions, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik submitted that the case of the petitioner is Page 23 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 squarely covered by those decisions, therefore, the present petition may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders. 19. Learned advocate, Mr. Amin appearing for the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.6700/2014, at the outset, submitted that most of the arguments related to the factual aspect of the matter as well as the merit of case of the petitioner have been canvassed by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik appearing in connected matters, therefore, he is adopting the same. He, however, submitted that certain few submissions, which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present matter are required to be addressed. He submitted that earlier, the order passed by the learned Collector was directly challenged before this Hon’ble Court, however the said writ petition was withdrawn with a liberty to file revision application before the learned SSRD and pursuant to the liberty granted by this Hon’ble Court, Revision Application was preferred before the learned SSRD, however, the said revision application was rejected without proper consideration, therefore, the present petition has been filed challenging those orders and in view of the fact that the facts of all these matters are analogous in nature, all these petitions are clubbed together. 20. Learned advocate, Mr. Amin submitted that in fact, the impugned order was passed in the year 2011, Page 24 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 however prior thereto, the petitioner has already purchased the land from one Vinubhai Shah, who is petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 by way of executing registered sale deed in the year 2010 and the petitioner herein is an agriculturist by birth and in fact, powers have been exercised by the revenue authorities on the basis of the application preferred by legal heirs of Punjabhai Mangalji, who has nothing to do with the said proceedings in view of the fact that forefather of the respondent no.3 had entered into transaction with the predecessor in title by way of executing registered sale deed, land has been transferred and during his life span, he had never challenged the said transaction, therefore, the seller cannot have any legitimate right to challenge the mutation of entry and/or any other proceedings based on deed executed between the parties. He further submitted that in the fact, the exercise of powers beyond reasonable period can be said to be illegal and unjust, that too, on the basis of an application made by third party, who has nothing to do with the said land. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has succinctly explained as to who can be said to be aggrieved person and it has been observed that it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger Page 25 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. 21. Learned advocate, Mr. Amin, at this stage, has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 28.04.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.433 of 2011 in Special Civil Application No.6168 of 2010 (in case of Navuji Lalji Vaghela & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., and emphasized the observations made and submitted that the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has held in a very categorical terms that the party aggrieved must have to show that any of his fundamental rights or legal rights have been infringed and thereby the party is aggrieved by such infringement, however in the facts of the present case, as can be seen from the facts narrated hereinabove, the respondent no.3 cannot be said to be aggrieved person and he cannot challenge the mutation of entry after selling out the land by his father long back. 22. At this stage, learned advocate, Mr. Amin referred to the provision of Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949 and submitted that by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that there is express breach of the provision as alleged, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that in the recent decision of the Page 26 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Hussainbhai Satarbhai Meman, reported in 2024 (4) GLH 410, the Division Bench has observed that the suo motu revision proceedings under the provision of the Ordinance, 1949 has to be exercised within a reasonable time and delayed proceedings much after delay are not permissible when the mutation entries related to the transactions were certified by the competent authority at the relevant point of time. He further submitted that if the Hon’ble Court would make cursory glance upon the provision of the law, in that event, it is evident that the authority concerned cannot forfeit the land and waste the said land to the Government in case of breach of the law. He, therefore, submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said decisions. 23. Learned advocate, Mr. Amin, at this stage, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 as well as the decision of this Hon’ble Court in case of Rinki Shashikant Gandhi Vs. Mamlatdar Vadodara Taluka, reported in 2012 (2) GLR 1275. Referring to the above facts of the case and the decisions as stated above, learned advocate, Mr. Amin submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid Page 27 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 decision, the discretion may be exercised in favour of the petitioners by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders and thereby allow the present petition. 24. Learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi appearing for the State authorities has also opposed the present petitions and submitted that the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities are just, legal and based upon sound principle of law, therefore, the said orders do not require any interference at the hands of this Hon’ble Court. He submitted that in fact on 04.05.1966, the agricultural certificate came to be issued in favour of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 by the concerned revenue authority with certain terms and conditions, which are required to be followed by the petitioner and one of the conditions is that the petitioner has to purchase the land within one year from the date of issuance of the said certificate and second is that before entering into sale transaction, prior permission is required to be obtained by the petitioner and here in the present case on hand, the petitioner has not obtained any permission from the competent authority and, therefore, the said fact had come to the notice of the concerned authority, therefore the proceedings under Section 54 of the Ordinance, 1949 were initiated, however subsequently it has been dropped essentially on the ground that the sale deed had been executed Page 28 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 after the issuance of the certificate and entry was also certified by the revenue authority. He submitted that on issuance of the notice upon the petitioner, reply was submitted by him and ultimately at the end of day, the learned Deputy Collector, by an order dated 31.03.2012, dropped the proceedings so far as land bearing Survey Nos.22 and 632/1 is concerned and so far as land bearing Survey No.422 is concerned, the order came to be passed to the effect that the transaction took place between Vinubhai Shah and Ramliklal Shah is in breach of Section 54 of the Ordinance, 1949 and, therefore, the order was passed under Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949 for eviction and consequential order of vesting the land to the Government also came to be passed. He forcefully submitted that the said order of the learned Deputy Collector had never been challenged by the petitioner before any competent authority, therefore, the findings given and the observations made by the competent authority in the said order had attained finality qua the land bearing Survey No.422 owned by the petitioner is concerned. He submitted that however, the said order had been challenged by the heirs of late Shri Punjabhai Mithabhai qua land bearing Survey No.22 and 632/1 before the Collector by way of preferring Appeal No.31/2010 and during the pendency of the said proceedings, in the year 2010, the petitioner had sold the land bearing Survey No.632/1 to one Page 29 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 Rajesh Jayantilal Shah, who is the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.6700/2016. He submitted that the Collector allowed the said appeal preferred by the legal heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhai, therefore being aggrieved by the said decision, writ petition was filed before this Hon’ble Court, however thereafter, the said writ petition came to be withdrawn by him with a liberty to approach learned SSRD as the aforesaid order was directly challenged before this Hon’ble Court. He submitted that however in the meantime, the learned Collector allowed the appeal preferred by the heirs of late Shri Punjabhai Mithabhai by quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the learned Deputy Collector qua land bearing Survey Nos.22 and 632/1, therefore, the said order was challenged by Rajeshbhai Shah before the learned SSRD, wherein interim stay was granted. He further submitted that on 20.02.2013, the learned Deputy Collector had initiated eviction proceedings against Smitaben Maniyar and Setul Maniyar, who are the daughter and grandson of Vinubhai Shah, who is petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 on account of breach of Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949 and accordingly, an order of eviction came to be passed against them, however, the said order had been challenged by the petitioner and not by the daughter and grandson of the petitioner, who are Page 30 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 aggrieved persons. He further submitted that during the interregnum period, aforesaid proceedings have been terminated by the Collector by assigning specific reasons that self-same order had been passed by the Hon’ble High Court, wherein the order of stay has been granted, therefore, subject to the outcome of the proceedings, those proceedings are required to be terminated. 25. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi submitted that admittedly the learned Deputy Collector had passed an order to evict Smitaben Maniyar and Setul Maniyar from the said parcel of land, therefore, they should be considered as “aggrieved party” in those proceedings, therefore, they have to challenge the said order by way of initiating appropriate proceedings. He submitted that in fact, Smitaben Maniyar and Setul Maniyar had challenged the order of the learned Deputy Collector before the learned Collector, however, those proceedings were terminated due to pendency of the present proceedings, whereas in the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 preferred by Vinubhai Shah though he is not affecting party to the said proceedings as the land had already been transferred in the name of third party against whom order had been passed, therefore, relief sought for to quash and set aside the said order is not permissible. He read the operative part of the order and submitted that the petitioner herein had transferred the land in Page 31 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 favour of Smitaben Maniyar and Setul Maniyar and their names were entered in the revenue records and subsequently certified also and after certain period of time, the said fact had come to the notice of the revenue authority, therefore, the authority had initiated proceedings against them, therefore by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner is aggrieved party because essentially the order is passed to evict Smitaben Maniyar and Setul Maniyar from the said land and, therefore, they are considered to be “aggrieved party” and could have got legitimate right to challenge the same by way of initiating appropriate legal procedure before the competent authority and the said part of the order cannot be challenged by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court. He submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that there is an alternative statutory remedy available under the law by filing revision application before the learned SSRD, despite that, the present petition is filed challenging the said decision, however considering the above stated facts, same cannot be entertained. 26. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 has sold the land to the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.6700/2016 viz., Rajesh Jayantilal Shah, therefore after selling out the land, he Page 32 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 cannot be said to be owner of the land bearing Survey No.632/1, therefore, this Hon’ble Court may not interfere with the same. 27. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi submitted that so far as the legal submissions are concerned, as per Section 54 of the Ordinance, 1949, no transfer is permissible in favour of the non-agriculturist as it is hit by the statutory provision of law. He submitted that amendment in provision of the Ordinance, 1949 came to be introduced in the year 2015, wherein it is stated that any sale, which has taken place before 30.06.2015 in favour of non-agriculturist, can be regularized on payment of 10% jantri rate, copy of said amendment is produced on record. He, however, submitted that till date, the petitioner has not made any application before the competent authority to regularize the said transaction as per the amendment carried out in the Government Resolution during the pendency of the proceedings, therefore, the relief as prayed for in the petition may not be granted. 28. Learned advocate, Mr. Rana appearing for private respondents in Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 and Special Civil Application No.6700/2016 has opposed the present petitions and submitted that in fact, the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 is not an agriculturist and he had preferred an application before the competent authority to declare him as Page 33 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 agriculturist and his application was considered by issuing certificate with certain directions. He submitted that as per the said certificate, one of the conditions is that within a period of one year from the date of issuance of the certificate, the petitioner has to purchase the land by executing registered sale deed and second condition is that before entering into sale transaction, he has to obtain prior permission from the competent authority and here in the present case on hand, the petitioner had purchased the land by way of executing deed within a period of one year but prior permission has not been obtained from the competent authority before entering into said transaction, therefore, this is a clear case of breach of the terms and conditions at the instance of the petitioner. He submitted that in fact, the father of the respondent no.1 has entered into certain monetary transactions with the petitioner as the petitioner was indulged into the finance business since many years and at the time of giving finance, he used to take signature upon certain papers and under the guise of issuance of such certificate by the competent authority, the petitioner herein had already executed number of sale deeds in his favour and usurped valuable land of number of gullible persons. He submitted that in fact, the private respondent has never entered into transaction of sale deed with the petitioner but they had taken certain amount as loan from the Page 34 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 petitioner and in lieu thereof, the deed of agreement had been executed between them and the said fact is clearly found out from the documents available on record. He submitted that in fact, the competent authority has issued certificate in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner herein has transferred certain agricultural land in the name of his daughter and his grandson under the provision of the Hindu Succession Act. He submitted that as the petitioner is not an agriculturist by birth and he had become agriculturist on the strength of the certificate issued by the competent authority and, therefore, rest of the family members cannot get status of an agriculturist on the basis of the certificate issued by the competent authority to the petitioner only, despite the said fact, based upon the said documentary material, certain lands have been parted between the relatives and under the guise of said certificate, name of other members of the family came to be mutated in the revenue record and, therefore, the respondent no.1 herein has challenged the order of the learned Deputy Collector before the competent revenue authority and the learned Collector had, after verifying the record and after considering the documentary material, passed just and reasoned order, which does not require interference at the hands of this Hon’ble court. He submitted that as per the Page 35 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 statutory provision of the law, the order of the learned Collector is required to be challenged before the learned SSRD instead of challenging before this Hon’ble Court despite the fact that statutory remedy is available under the law, in that even, the present petition may not be entertained. He submitted that so far as the initiation of proceedings against Ramniklal Shah is concerned, it is settled proposition of law that once the entry is mutated and certified by the competent also and those proceedings continues for longer period of time and despite that fact, if the authority concerned jumps to a conclusion that the said entry mutated in the revenue record is against the statutory provisions of law, in that event, suo motu proceedings are required to be initiated within reasonable period of time and here in the present case on hand, as stated above, suo motu proceedings have been initiated after a period of 21 years. 29. Learned advocate, Mr. Satyam Chhaya appearing for the respondent no.10 in Special Civil Application No.2919/2014 submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that during the pendency of the proceedings, the land in question had been purchased by the respondent by way of executing registered sale deed on payment of entire sale consideration and pursuant to which, entry was mutated in the revenue record and subsequently certified also by the competent authority. He Page 36 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 submitted that the respondent is an agriculturist by birth and to prove the said fact, sufficient documents and material have been supplied by the respondent. He submitted that on the strength of the execution of the registered sale deed, he had become absolute owner of the land in question and cultivating the said land and those facts are well within the knowledge of the competent revenue authority, despite the fact that the respondent is lawful owner and occupant of the said land, the proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the revenue authority against the predecessor in title and at the end of day, passed an order directing the authority to vest the said land to the Government and directed the predecessor in title and the petitioner to vacate the said premises. He submitted that at the time of initiation of the proceedings, those particular facts were well within the knowledge of the revenue authority that on the date of passing of the order, the predecessor in title was not at all in possession of the land and they were not owner, occupant and in possession of the said land. He submitted that the respondent no.10 is the main affecting party and at the time of passing an order, appropriate opportunity of hearing had not been provided to them and they have not been joined in the said proceedings and, therefore, the said view adopted by the authority concerned is unjust and illegal. He submitted that so far as Page 37 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 the issue pertaining to the initiation of the suo motu proceedings after long period of time, he is adopting rest of the arguments canvased by learned advocates of the respective petition in view of the fact that it is an admitted position of fact that the revenue authority had initiated proceedings much belatedly after much lapse of period and, therefore as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court, the impugned order may not sustain for a moment and requires to be quashed and set aside by allowing the petition. 30. In view of aforesaid submissions canvased by learned advocates for the parties and having considered the documents produced on record, it appears that the dispute is with regard to cancellation of mutation of entry after long delay by the revenue authorities exercise of powers under the provision of the Revenue Code and passing of an order of eviction from the land on the ground that the first transaction took place pursuant to the certificate issued by the competent authority is in contravention with the conditions of the certificate, which leads to breach of the provision of law. 31. It is found out from the facts of the case, one Vinubhai Mangaldas Shah, who is petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 had applied for issuance of certificate from the competent authority and pursuant thereto, the agricultural Page 38 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 certificate has been issued in favour of Vinubhai Shah on 30.04.1966 and on the basis of the said certificate, the said Vinubhai Shah had purchased land bearing Survey No.115 from the original land owner, Harijan Muda Rama by way of executing registered sale deed and pursuant to which, Entry No.140 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 05.10.1966, which was also certified by the revenue authority on 09.06.1967. It is found out that Ramniklal Mangaldas Shah, who is petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2919/2014 had purchased land bearing Survey Nos.782 pk., 739, 422, 956, 957 and 958 situated in Village : Dasada, Surendranagar by way of executing registered sale deed during the period between 1969 to 1988 and pursuant to the said transactions, Entry Nos.1350, 1446, 1472 and 2537 came to be mutated in the revenue record. The Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra issued show cause notice on 01.12.1984 upon the petitioner under Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949 to show cause as to why the land in question should not be confiscated and as to why he should not be evicted from the land in question on the ground that the though the petitioner is not an agriculturist, he has purchased the said land in question and pursuant to issuance of the said notice, the said Vinubhai Shah had submitted his detailed reply along with necessary documents including the registered sale deed for the Page 39 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 purchase of the land after he became the agriculturist on the basis of the certificate issued by the Deputy Collector and on the basis of the reply along with the documents submitted by the said Vinubhai Shah, the Deputy Collector dropped the aforesaid proceedings by an order dated 06.02.1985. Thereafter, the said Vinubhai Shah had also entered into sale transaction with one Punjabhai Mithabhai for his land bearing Survey No.632/1 pk. by way of registered sale deed and pursuant thereto, Entry No.2396 came to be mutated in the revenue record in the year 1988-89. However again despite dropping of the proceedings as stated above, the Deputy Collector issued show cause notice upon the said Vinubhai Shah on 10.08.2006 under Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949 to show cause as to why the land bearing Survey No.632/1 pk. should not be confiscated and as to why he should not be evicted from the said land, therefore, the said Vinubhai Shah had again submitted his detailed reply on 21.09.2006 along with all required material and evidence and after considering the material and evidence produced by the said Vinubhai Shah along with the reply, the Deputy Collector, by an order dated 31.03.2010, had withdrawn the said notice issued for the land bearing Survey No.632/1 pk. Not only that, the said Vinubhai Shah had also purchased other parcels of land including land bearing Survey Nos.22 & 422 by way of executing Page 40 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 registered sale deed, out of which, land bearing Survey No.422 had been purchased by the said Vinubhai Shah from Ramniklal Shah and entries to that effect were also mutated in the revenue record. The said Ramniklal Shah had also sold the land bearing Survey Nos.956, 957 and 958 to one Zahiruddin Usmankhanji, who is the respondent no.10 of Special Civil Application No.2919/2014, by way of executing registered sale deed and pursuant to the same, Entry No.4080 came to be mutated in the revenue record. However subsequently, a report came to be submitted by the learned Mamlatdar before the learned Assistant Collector on 01.11.1987 contending inter alia that sale transaction, based on which Entry No.2537 dated 01.10.1985, is against the provision of Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949 and on the basis of which, proceedings were undertaken and by an order dated 31.12.1988, declaring the aforesaid entries in violation of the provision of Section 54 of the Ordinance, 1949, it was ordered to evict him from the land in question, against which, Appeal was preferred before the learned Collector, who rejected the said Appeal by an order dated 18.05.1991, against which, Appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad, who remanded the matter back before the learned Deputy Collector for fresh consideration on merits, however despite remand, by an order dated Page 41 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 31.12.1998, the request of the petitioner has been turned down, therefore, Appeal being Gharkhed/Ord/ Appeal Case No.1/2009-10 was preferred before the learned Collector, who by an order dated 19.12.2009, rejected the said appeal, therefore, Revision Application was preferred before the learned SSRD, who rejected it by an order dated 11.05.2011, against which, Special Civil Application No.2919/2014 has been preferred. However in the meantime, against the order dated 31.03.2010, whereby the proceedings have been withdrawn by the revenue authorities, the heirs of said Punjabhai Mithabhai viz., Govindbhai had preferred Appeal being Gharkhed Ordinance Appeal No.3/2010 before the Collector, Surendranagar. However pending above numbered appeal before the Collector, the said Vinubhai Shah entered into sale transaction with one Rajesh Jayantilal Shah, who is petitioner of Special Civil Application No.6700/2016 by executing registered sale deed in his favour on 27.08.2010. However without properly considering the facts of the case and the documents available on record, the Collector allowed the Appeal preferred by the heirs of the Punjabhai Mithabhai by an order dated 29.09.2011 and thereby ordered that the land bearing Survey No.632/1 pk. be directed to enter into in the name of Government. During the interregnum period, the said Vinubhai Shah had transferred land bearing Survey Nos.102 pk.2 & 102 pk.3 in favour of his Page 42 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 daughter and grandson viz., Smitaben Hemendra Maniyar and Setul Hemendra Maniyar and pursuant thereto, entry came to be mutated. However being aggrieved by an order dated 29.09.2011, the said Rajesh Jayantilal Shah approached the learned SSRD by filing Revision Application No.MVV/ Gharkhed/ SNR/8/2012, wherein the learned SSRD directed the parties to maintain status quo, however despite an order of status quo, the Deputy Collector in another proceedings being Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.3/12-13 as well as Gharkhed Ordinance No.2/2012-13, by an order dated 20.02.2013, directed the authority concerned to evict Smitaben Hemendra Maniyar and Setul Hemendra Maniyar from the land owned by them, against which, Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 has been preferred. However, Revision Application No.8/2012 preferred by the said Rajesh Jayantilal Shah came to be rejected by the learned SSRD by an order dated 15.02.2016, against which, Special Civil Application No.6700/2016 has been preferred. 32. Thus having considered the above facts of the case, it is evident that the basis of initiation of the proceedings against the mutation of entries mutated in favour of the petitioner concerned is on account of the breach committed by the person concerned while entering into sale transaction, however, the initiation of those proceedings affect rights of all the parties to the present petitions, which resulted into initiation of Page 43 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 different revenue proceedings, which reached upto this Hon’ble Court by way of filing aforesaid three petitions seeking appropriate reliefs as prayed therein. 33. As can be seen from the facts of the present case, one of the grounds for initiation of the suo motu proceeding is that though the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 is not an agriculturist, he had purchased land and even he has not complied with the terms and conditions as mentioned in the certified issued by the competent authority. It is to be noted that the said petitioner had applied for issuance certificate from the competent authority and pursuant thereto, the learned Deputy Collector issued certificate under Section 54(1) read with Rule 18(i) of the Ordinance, 1949 on 30.04.1966 and on the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner had entered into sale transaction and purchased various parcels of land. However while issuing said certificate, it is directed that the petitioner has to purchase land within a period of one year and before entering into sale transaction, he has to obtain prior permission from the competent authority. Thus in the facts of the present case, the petitioner had entered into sale transaction and purchased the land within a period of one year, however admittedly, he has not obtained prior permission from the competent authority. Therefore the question, which would fall for Page 44 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 consideration of this Court is as to whether the said act on the part of the petitioner can be said to be alleged breach. Here in the present case, the petitioner has complied with one condition by purchasing the land but prior permission had not been obtained. But it is an admitted position of fact that the said sale transaction had taken place in the year 1966 and based on it, entry was mutated and subsequently certified also. Thereafter on 01.12.1984, for the very same transaction, proceeings initiated against the petitioner by issuing show cause notice to show cause as to why the land should not be confiscated and as to why he should not be evicted from the said land and on receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted detailed reply accompanying with relevant documents and considering those set of documents, the said proceedings were dropped. Thereafter, the petitioner entered to another transaction for the land bearing Survey No.632/1 pk. by executing registered sale deed with one Punjabhai Mithabhai and pursuant thereto, entry came to be mutated in the revenue record. However thereafter, the said transaction was also taken into suo motu by issuing show cause notice on 10.08.2006 to the petitioner to show cause as to why the said land should not be confiscated and as to why he should not be evicted from the said land, to which, detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner on 21.09.2006 and again considering Page 45 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 those set of documents, the learned Deputy Collector had withdrawn the said proceedings by an order dated 31.03.2010. Thus from the above facts, it is clear that twice suo motu proceedings were initiated and once it has been dropped and once it has been withdrawn, therefore here in the present case, the principle of res judicate would strictly applicable to the facts of the case. It is required to be noted that the doctrine of res judicata in revenue proceedings is a legal principle that prevents the reopening of matters that have been finally decided by a competent court/ competent revenue authority. The said principle is codified under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which states that no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court. In revenue proceedings, this principle is applied to ensure that once a matter has been adjudicated by a revenue court, it cannot be reopened in a subsequent revenue proceeding. The said provision of law engrfted in the stattue with an intent to prevent multiplicity of proceedings Page 46 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 and to protect parties from being vexed twice for the same cause. The doctrine of res judicata is a cornerstone of modern legal systems, ensuring the finality and consistency of judicial decisions. Here in the present case on hand, it is admitted position of fact that twice suo motu proceedings were initiated by issuing show cause notice upon the petitioners, to which, detailed reply was submitted and considering those set of documents, the said proceedings were once dropped and once withdrawn and, thereafter, just because of challenge to the said proceeding by the heirs of the original land owners, who has nothing to do with land after pocketing money (amount of sale consideration) by their father, the proceedings have been initiated, therefore in my considered opinion, same cannot be initiated, that too, after long period of time, which is not permissible in view of the various judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court. 34. So far as the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2919/2014 viz., Ramniklal Mangaldas Shah, against whom also suo motu proceedings have been initiated, is concerned, the said petitioner had purchased land bearing Survey No.422 from the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 viz., Vinubhai Shah and as the proceeding against the said Vinubhai Shah had initiated, against the petitioner, Ramniklal Shah, Page 47 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 the suo motu proceedings have been initiated. It is, however, required to be noted that basis for initiation of proceedings against the said Vinubhai Shah is that he has not complied with the conditions imposed by the authority while issuing certificate and on the ground that he is not an agriculturist. However if the facts of the present case are examined then, it is evident that the said Ramniklal Shah is an agriculturist as earlier also, he has purchased various parcel of land by way of executing registered sale deed and he is the bonafide purchaser of the land in question. It is to be noted that as stated above, earlier against the said Vinubhai Shah, twice the proceedings have been initiated and despite dropping and/or withdrawal of those proceedings, again the proceedings have been initiated and as I have said earlier, it is not permissible, therefore, the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner is against the settled law as the principle of res judicata would apply as stated above. 35. At this stage, submission made by learned advocate, Mr. Amin contending that as to who can be said to be aggrieved party, is also required to be considered. It is to be noted that here in the present case, as stated above, twice the proceedings were initiated and, thereafter, once it has been dropped and once it has been withdrawn and, thereafter, heirs of the original owner, Page 48 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 Punjabhai Mithabhai, from whom the said Vinubhai Shah had purchased the land in question, had challenged the order of withdrawal of the proceedings, wherein the order came to be passed, which affects the rights of all the parties. Admittedly, the heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhai had nothing to do with dropping and/or withdrawal of the proceedings against the said Vinubhai Shah in view of the fact that the said Punjabhai Mithabhai had already sold out the land to the said Vinubhai Shah and pocketed entire sale consideration. It is the case of the heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhai that the land had been taken away by the said Vinubhai Shah by playing fraud with them, therefore in my considered opinion, they cannot be said to be aggrieved party because till date, the said sale deed has not been challenged. In this regard, I would like to refer to and rely upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate, Mr. Amin, in case of Navuji Lalji Vaghela (supra), wherein it has been observed as under, “………………………… the party aggrieved must show that any of his fundamental rights or any other legal rights have been infringed and thereby the party is aggrieved by such infringement. 36. In the aforesaid decision, it is further observed as under, “We have been consistently noticing that many Page 49 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 persons like the present appellants have started abusing the process of law and have started taking advantage of such proceedings, more particularly, in land matters. After entering into a transaction with eyes wide open, knowing fully well that the transaction is in breach of the provisions of the Tenancy Act and after pocketing huge amount when the transaction is declared invalid and subsequently if the purchaser succeeds, the original owner would come before the Court saying that the transaction be declared invalid. Such parties need to be deprecated.” 37. At this stage, I would like to refer to and rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra), upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate, Mr. Amin, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under, “7. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law.” 38. In view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court, it is evident that an aggrieved party is typically defined as someone who has suffered a legal injury Page 50 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 or deprivation of a right, enabling them to seek redress through legal channels. In a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of A. Subash Babu Vs. State of A.P. & Anr., reported in (2011) 7 SCC 616, it has been observed as under:- “The expression ‘aggrieved person’ denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined that the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the complainant’s interest and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injuries suffered by him.” 39. Further, the expression ‘person aggrieved’ does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized. Aforesaid aspect has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decisions in case of Shanti Kumar R. Canji Vs. Home Insurance Co. of New York, reported in (1974) 2 SCC 387. 40. Therefore applying the above tests, I am of the considered opinion that heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhai cannot be said to be aggrieved persons in view of the fact that the said Punjabhai Mithabhai had already sold the land to Vinubhai Page 51 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 Shah and pocketed entire sale consideration and from that day itself, his rights in the said land was over and the initiation of the suo motu proceedings against the said Vinubhai Shah was on the ground of breach of conditions, wherein the said Punjabhai Mithabhai has nothing to do, therefore, there was no reason for the heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhi to challenge the order of withdrawal of the proceedings against the said Vinubhai Mithabhai. 41. At this state, I would like to refer to and rely upon the decision of this Hon’ble Court in case of Bharatbhai Naranbhai Vegda (supra), upon which reliance has been placed by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Naik, wherein this Hon’ble Court has considered the aspect that after pocketing amount by the original land owner, his heirs had come forward claiming their right in the land after sad demise of their father and such contention raised by the person concerned has been deprecated by this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid decision. Relevant observations made by this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid decision read as under, “16. Examining the matter further, it appears that it is an admitted position that the father of the respondent no.5 after having accepted the consideration, has executed the sale deed and during his life time, he did not raise any grievance for the validity of the transaction nor did he contend that he was under a mistaken belief at the time when the sale Page 52 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 deed was executed, but now having realised the said mistake, he is ready to return the consideration. Further, respondent no.5 has also filed Civil Suits after death of his father which are pending in the Civil Court where the rights of the parties are yet to be examined. Under these circumstances, it can be said that when the respondent no.5 originated the Government machinery, the bonafide would be lacking since one who is a party to the transaction cannot be heard to say at a later stage that the transaction is not valid that too after a period of about more than 35 years. In any case, respondent no.5 had moved the authority and the impugned action of issuance of show-cause notice has been taken, but when the Court considers the aspect of reasonable period and finds that the exercise of the jurisdiction was barred by delay and the consequential action could be said as without jurisdiction, the question of locus on the part of respondent no.5 may not assume much importance. 17. We may also record that by the impugned notice, the petitioners are called upon to show cause not only for invalidating the transaction under section 54 of the Ordinance, but the further action is also contemplated under section 75, not only for eviction, but to resume the land by the State Government. As per the respondent no.5, the authority had no such power to resume back Page 53 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 the said land and as per Mr.Kavina, in view of the similar provision made under the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 and the interpretation thereof by this Court, in the decision reported in the case of Govindsingh Ramsinghbhai Vaghela v. G. Subbarao, Asstt. Collector Dholka reported at 1970 GLR 897, the original owner would be entitled to get back the land and not the vesting thereof in the State Government. 18. Section 75 of the ordinance provides for the enabling power of summary eviction by the Collector. There are no express powers for forfeiture by the State Government nor there is any express power for re-entrustment of the land to the original owner. If the provisions of section 75 are considered with the provisions of section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, whenever the legislature wanted, it provided for the entrustment of the land to the transferor or the forfeiture thereof by the State Government. Such is not the language used in section 75 of the Act.” 42. Therefore considering the above observations made by this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid decision, if the facts of the present case are examined, in that event, it is found out that here in the present case, Punjabhai Mithabhai, who is the original land owner, had already sold out the land Page 54 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 to Vinubhai Shah and thus, he had received entire sale consideration and he had never raised any dispute in this regard, however here in the present case on hand, as noted above, because of challenge to the order of withdrawal of the proceedings against the said Vinubhai Shah, the heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhai had challenged the said order, wherein the order came to be passed against the petitioners of above writ petitions. Over and above that, if any order, that might have been passed related to the land purchased by the said Vinubhai Shah and subsequently purchased by Ramniklal Shah, would not prejudicially affect any of his rights, which would entitle him to take appropriate recourse. Therefore considering the above facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhai has no locus to challenge the order as he cannot be said to be aggrieved party. 43. One of the contentions raised by learned AGP Mr. Trivedi with regard to the efficacious remedy available for the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 contending inter alia that the order of the learned Collector has been directly challenged before this Hon’ble Court by filing said writ petition despite the fact that the said order ought to have been challenged before the leaned SSRD, is also required to be considered. In this regard, it is to be noted that there is no dispute about the fact that the order Page 55 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 of learned Collector has been challenged by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court directly instead of challenging it before the learned SSRD. However if the facts of the present case, as noted above, are examined, in that event, it is found out that it is an admitted position of fact that against the said petitioner, twice suo motu proceedings were initiated by the revenue authorities, however once it has been dropped and once it has been withdrawn and the said order of withdrawal of the proceeding has been challenged by the heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhai, who has no locus and in the said proceedings, an order came to be passed affecting the rights of the petitioner, therefore, the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India have been violated. The exceptions to the "rule of alternate remedy" are well laid out in terms of judicial precedents and would include situations where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of law or acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; or where an order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 44. The exceptions to the 'rule of alternate remedy' were considered in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, wherein it was observed as follows :- Page 56 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 "14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old Page 57 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field." 45. Following the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in another decision in case of Harbanslal Sahnia Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 has observed as under, "7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed is concerned, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies : (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1. The present case attracts applicability of the first two contingencies. Moreover, as Page 58 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 noted, the petitioners' dealership, which is their bread and butter, came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings." 46. The 'rule of alternate remedy' in the context of maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 has been examined in a recent decision in the case of Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 and it has been held that since the power under Article 226 to issue writs can be exercised not only for enforcement of fundamental rights but for any other purpose as well, the High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition and one of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 47. The rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies has been held to be a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and existence of an alternate remedy would not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , which may be exercised in appropriate cases. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, it appears that much water has since flown beneath the bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect on these decisions which, though old, continue to Page 59 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 hold the field with the result that law as to the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation. Over and abvoe that, the petition is of the year 2014 and we are in the year 2026, therefore after much period, the petitioner cannot be relegated to avail alternative remedy. 48. So far as the contention raised by learned AGP contending that the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 has also sought relief in favour of his daughter and grandson, against whom an order of eviction has been passed, without joining them as party petitioner is also required to be considered. Admittedly suo motu proceedings were initiated on the ground of breach of conditions, wherein the daughter and grandson son of the said petitioner were party to the said proceedings but those proceedings have been either dropped or withdrawn by the revenue authority qua Vinubhai Shah. Admittedly, it is found out from the record that suo motu proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the Deputy Collector under the provision of the Ordinance, 1945, wherein the daughter and grandson of the Page 60 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 petitioner were party in the proceedings and order to the effect that they should be evicted from the land and their names are required to be deleted by vesting the said land to the Government and being aggrieved by the said order, all three parties have approached the Collector, however during the pendency of those proceedings, present petition is filed by the petitioner without joining them in the present proceedings knowingfully well that the daughter and grandson are aggrieved party and because of issuance of notice by this Hon’ble Court in the matter, the concerned authority had terminated those proceedings by assigning specially reasons that based upon the same set of documents, the petition is filed, wherein notice has been issued, therefore, the said order is subject to final outcome of the said petition. Therefore in view of the above facts of the case, I have found substance in the arguments canvased by learned AGP. 49. Learned AGP has empathetically submitted that so far as the observations made by the Deputy Collector in suo motu proceedings related to land bearing Survey No.422 are concerned, those proceedings have attained finality as Vinubhai Shah and/or Ramniklal Shah had not challenged the said order before any higher authority and the order of the Deputy Collector had been challenged by the legal heirs of Punjabhai Mithabhai by filing appeal and their appeal had been allowed by Page 61 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 the Collector and subsequently the said order is also confirmed by the learned SSRD. In short, in the revenue proceedings, adverse order passed against Vinubhai Shah and Ramniklal Shah had already attained finality, therefore in the present proceedings, writ petition preferred at the instance of the petitioner is not required to be entertained, therefore considering the above fact, prima facie it seems that there is substance in the arguments canvased by learned AGP. A conjoint reading of all the proceedings, it is found out that in fact, the revenue authority had initiated different proceedings against both brothers essentially on the ground of breach of the condition under Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1945. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2919/2014, Ramniklal Shah was aggrieved and decided to question the decision delivered by the authority concerned by way of filing Appeal before the Collector and the said Appeal was dismissed, therefore, the said order was challenged before the learned SSRD and the reliefs sought for in those proceedings crystallize the position of fact that in separate proceedings, the revenue authority has also taken decision to cancel the said entry mutated and subsequently certified in the name of Ramniklal Shah. The said writ petition preferred by the said petitioner has been considered by this Court and had come to a conclusion that the suo motu Page 62 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 proceedings have been initiated after many years. Therefore considering the above aspects of the matter, there is no substance in the arguments canvased by learned AGP and is not required to be entertained at this juncture. 50. Now the last submission canvased by learned advocates appearing for the petitioners in respective matters with regard to initiation of the suo motu proceedings after much delay is also required to be considered. So far as the aspect of delay in initiation of the revision proceedings is concerned, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha reported in AIR 1969 SC 129 would be squarely applicable to the present case. It is an admitted position of fact that there has been a delay of 21 years in the exercise of revisional powers under Section 211 of the BLRC by the Collector. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment in case of Raghav Natha (supra) has made the observation that even if such transactions have restrictions or a statutory restrictions, exercise of power has to be within a reasonable period. The observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision are as under, “12. It seems to us that sec. 65 itself indicates the length of the reasonable time within which the Commissioner must act u/s. 211. u/s. 65 of the Code if the Collector does not inform the applicant of his decision on the application within a period of three months Page 63 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. This section shows that a period of three months is considered ample for the Collector to make up his mind and beyond that the legislature thinks that the matter is so urgent that permission shall be deemed to have been granted. Reading Ss. 211 and 65 together it seems to us that the Commissioner must exercise his revisional powers within a few months of the order of the Collector. This is reasonable time because after the grant of the permission for building purposes the occupant is likely to spend money on starting building operations at least within a few months from the date of the permission. In this case the Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector on 12.10.1961, i.e., more than a year after the order, and it seems to us that this order was passed too late. 51. The aforesaid view has been reiterated time and again in catena of judicial pronouncements including the another judgment of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in case of Joseph Severance v/s Benny Mathew reported in (2005) 7 SCC 667. Thereafter it has been reiterated by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2013) 2 GLR 1788, wherein it has been observed: "It must be fairly said that if the statue Page 64 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 does not prescribe time limit for exercise of revisional powers, it does not mean that such powers can be exercised at any point of time even if there is a breach of Section 43 of the Act, which is a provision which relates to a new tenure land, rather it should be exercised within a reasonable period of time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. It is clear from various judgments of the Supreme Court that where a statutory provision for exercise of any suo motu powers of revision does not prescribe any limitation, the powers must be exercised within a reasonable period of time even in the case of transaction which would be termed as void transaction." [emphasis supplied] 52. At this stage, a useful reference can be made to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Hussainbhai Satarbhai Meman (supra), upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate, Mr. Amin, wherein the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has considered the well-known decision of Raghav Natha (supra) as well as other decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the initiation of the suo motu proceedings after much delay and considering those decision, it has been observed as under, “102 A bare reading of the said provision indicates that it confers powers upon the Page 65 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 Collector to deal with such properties which are not the properties of the individuals or of aggregates of persons legally capable of holding the property. We may note that with the summary eviction of the tranferee under Section 75 of the Ordinance' 1949, though sale deeds in his favour can be held to be invalid, but it does not result in extinction of the right of the vendor or owner in the property-in-question. Though there is no provision for restoration of the land to the vendor, but the provisions does not contemplate divesting of the title of the vendor. So the words which are not the property of individuals or of aggregates of persons legally capable of holding the property cannot attract. No declaration of the property-in-question being the State property can be made with the aid of Section 37 of the Revenue Code, 1979 and the Collector has no power to take possession of the lands subject matter of sale and dispose of the same under Section 37 of the Land Revenue Code, 1979. 117 It may be noted from the law discussed above pertaining to the reasonable time for exercise of suo motu action, that the legislature in its wisdom did not fix the time limit for exercise of summary eviction, however, it does not mean that the legislature intended to leave the action under the Act for an indefinite period of Page 66 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 time, inasmuch as, it would have an effect of rendering title of the land holders/transferees in a state of perpetual uncertainty. The Court has to construe the statutory provisions in a way which makes the provision workable advancing the purpose and object of the enactment of the statute (reference be made to paragraph No. '28' of the decision of the Apex Court in Sulochana Chandrakant Galande). 123 The said case arose out of the proceedings initiated under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act, 1948 on the premise that the sale transactions of the year 1970 was hit by the provisions of Section 63 of the said Act. The appeal filed by the transferor, i.e. the original owner seeking for a declaration of transaction of the year 1970 as invalid and restoration of possession of the property in his favour was dismissed by the Division Bench noticing that legality and the validity of the transaction cannot be looked as power in suo motu review was exercised after unreasonable period of time. 128 At the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that a declaration of the sale deed as invalid was required to be made after an inquiry which must have been conducted within a reasonable time before the Summary eviction. The sale deeds remained valid for considerable long period of time and moreover, they are binding on the vendors. Page 67 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 The inquiry into the status of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners or the petitioners herein after such a long lapse of time, can not be permitted, as it may not be possible to bring on record all the relevant documents in such an inquiry(s). A transaction hit by Section 54 is not void ab initio, but may be invalidated and hence remains valid till it is declared invalid. The settled position of law that the transaction which remained valid and effective for a considerable period of time cannot be unsettled, is not to be deviated. Further, there is no vesting contemplated under the Ordinance, 1949 and as noted hereinbefore, the show cause notices are prescribing for not only eviction of the transferees, but resumption of the land in favour of the State Government by directing for entry of the name of the State in the revenue records after deletion of the entries, even of the original landholders while deleting the name of the transferees, which is wholly without jurisdiction.” 53. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, it can be said that the suo motu powers are required to be exercised within reasonable time. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Collector after a period of approximately 21 years by Page 68 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 issuing show cause notice upon the petitioner, therefore, the suo motu proceedings were not initiated within reasonable period. Therefore in view of the above facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that when the suo motu proceedings were initiated after a delay of more than 21 years, the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities are required to be quashed and set aside. 54. In view of the aforesaid discussions, Special Civil Application No.2876/2014 is partly allowed. The order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar in Gharkhed Ordinance Appeal No.31/2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. Whereas the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector, Patadi in Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.3/12-13 and the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector, Patadi in Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.2/12-13 issuing direction for eviction of Smitaben Hemendra Maniyar and Setul Hemendra Maniyar, who are the daughter and grandson of the petitioner respectively are not disturbed in view of the discussions made hereinabove. However, it is open for Smitaben Hemendra Maniyar and Setul Hemendra Maniyar to take appropriate legal recourse available under the law. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. 55. Accordingly, Special Civil Application No.2919/2014 is allowed. The impugned order dated Page 69 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026 C/SCA/2876/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 13.05.2011 passed by the learned Secretary (Appeals) vide order No.MVV/Ghatkhed/SNR/2/2010 and the order dated 19.12.2009 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar and order dated 09.06.2009 passed by the Deputy Collector, Dhrangdhra are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. 56. Simultaneously, Special Civil Application No.6700/2016 is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.02.2016 passed by learned Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No.8 of 2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. 57. Connected application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam Page 70 of 70 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 16:00:44 IST 2026</div>