VIPULBHAI ANANDLAL SHAH vs COLLECTOR, VADODARA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/17576/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17576 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
===================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
===================================================
VIPULBHAI ANANDLAL SHAH
Versus
COLLECTOR, VADODARA & ANR.
===================================================
Appearance:
MR. ASIM PANDYA, Senior Counsel assisted by MR PRATHAM P
JOSHI(12796) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. PARTH.A.PATEL(14030) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
===================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 15/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Jayneel Parikh,
learned AGP waives service of Rule for and on behalf of the
respondent – State authorities.
2. Heard Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior Counsel
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:03:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/17576/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
assisted by Mr. Pratham P. Joshi, learned advocate appearing for
the petitioner and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for
the respondent – State authorities.
3. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties, the present matter is taken-up for final
hearing.
4. By way of the present Petition, petitioner herein has
invoked Article-226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved
and dissatisfied by the impugned order / communication dated
18.12.2024 passed by the learned Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara
(Annexure A), wherein, in compliance of the order passed in SCA
No. 14770 of 2024 dated 29.10.2024, the Representation made by
the petitioner herein dated 04.11.2024 and order passed by the
Deputy Collector, Vadodara, in communication no.
Review/Revision/ VASHI/753/2024 dated 22.11.2024, the
respondent no.2 directed the petitioner to appear before the
respondent no.3 on the next date of hearing, i.e. 26.12.2024, by
order dated 18.12.2024, with an Affidavit and to deposit an
amount of premium to the tune of Rs.19,25,92,410/-. Being
aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.12.2024, the petitioner
herein has challenged the said order, and prayed for the
following reliefs:
“9. In the premises aforesaid, the petitioner most humbly
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:03:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/17576/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
and respectfully prays that:
(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and
setting aside the impugned letter dated 18.12.2024 of
Mamlatdar & ALT (at ANNEXURE-I) in the interest of justice;
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present
petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further
operation, implementation and execution of the impugned
letter dated 18.12.2024 of Mamlatdar & ALT (at ANNEXURE-
I) and further be pleased to direct the learned District
Collector to decide the representation of the petitioner dated
04.11.2024 and 06.12.2024 without being influenced by the
impugned letter dated 18.12.2024; at Annxure-H & I
(C) Pass any such other and / or further orders that may
be thought just and proper,in the facts and circumstances of
the present case;”
5.1. It is the case of the petitioner states that, the
impugned order is contemptuous in nature and amounts to
contempt of the order dated 29.10.2024 passed in SCA No. 14770
of 2024, the order passed by the learned GRT dated 26.03.2024,
as also the order passed / communication issued by the Deputy
Collector dated 07.06.2024.
5.2. The subject land comprises of Revenue Survey / Block
Nos. 301, 379 and 380, Block No. 241/A admeasuring 04-76-95
Hectare-Are-Sq. Mtrs. of Village Khatamba, Taluka and District
Vadodara (for short ‘the land in question / subject land’).
5.3. The petitioner herein is the original owner of the land
Page 3 of 16
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:03:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/17576/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
in question. That originally the subject land was in the name of
one Bai Girjaben Chauhan, having purchased the subject land by
way of a registered sale deed dated 01.07.2003, wherein, the
Mutation Entry No. 1256 was given effect and duly certified on
05.07.2003. The fact that the petitioner herein is an agriculturist
is not in dispute.
5.4. The petitioner thereafter sold the subject land to one
Chandravadan Leelachand Bhalawat by way of a registered sale
deed dated 20.01.2005, wherein Mutation Entry No. 1335 dated
23.02.2005 was mutated and duly certified. Thereafter, by
coparcenary Entry No. 1390 dated 17.11.2006, the names of
Chandravadan Leelachand Bhalawat were mutated in the Record
of Rights of the subject land as coparceners.
5.5. After a period of delay of 16 years, the Mamlatdar
and ALT, Vadodara, initiated a suo-motu inquiry under Section
84-C of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
(for short ‘the Tenancy Act’) and registered Tenancy Case No. 12
of 2021, mainly on the ground of breach of Section 63 of the
Tenancy Act. By order dated 31.03.2021, respondent no. 3
ordered that the subject land be vested into the State
Government. Though it was mandatory for the respondent No. 3,
no opportunity to restore the land to the parties as provided
under Section 84-C(2) of the Tenancy Act within 90 days was
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:03:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/17576/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
granted.
5.6. The said order was reviewed by the Deputy Collector,
Land Reforms, Vadodara, and registered the Case as No. Tenancy
/Review /SR /89 of 2022, wherein, by order dated 12.07.2022,
concurred with the view of respondent no. 3 and further directed
the vesting of the subject land into the State Government.
5.7. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner
herein preferred Revision Application being No. Revision - VDD-
117 of 2023 before the GRT, wherein, upon arriving at a
settlement, the GRT by order dated 26.03.2024 allowed the
Revision, quashing and setting aside the orders dated 31.03.2021
and 12.07.2022 passed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively,
the transaction was restored in favour of the petitioner, and the
petitioner was declared as the owner, upon an Undertaking given
by the petitioner that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay
the amount of premium, if applicable, without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the petitioner. The said Undertaking is
placed on record by Mr. Pandya, the learned Senior Counsel.
5.8. In light of the aforesaid, the learned GRT further
directed the petitioner to pay the premium, if payable. The said
order passed by the learned GRT attained finality.
5.9. The aforesaid order passed by the learned GRT was
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:03:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/17576/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
mutated in the revenue record in Village Form No. 6 being entry
no. 2742 on 04.04.2024; however, the correct effect was not
given in Village Form No. 7/12. In view thereof, the petitioner
herein preferred RTS Appeal No. 90 of 2024 before the Deputy
Collector seeking directions to give effect to the Mutation Entry
No. 2742 in the first right. By order dated 07.06.2024, the
appeal was allowed, and respondent No. 3 was directed to give
correct effect to the order of the GRT.
5.10. On 18.07.2024, the petitioner made a representation
to the Collector to give correct effect of the order passed by the
GRT dated 26.03.2024. The petitioner herein thereafter was
constrained to prefer SCA No. 14770 of 2024, which was
disposed of, by order dated 29.10.2024 with a direction to make
a fresh representation to the Collector, which was ordered to be
decided within 60 days. Accordingly, the petitioner herein on
04.11.2024 preferred a fresh representation to Respondent No. 2-
Collector. The petitioner made additional submissions in
furtherance of the representation before the Collector on
06.12.2024.
5.11. On 18.12.2024, the Mamlatdar issued the impugned
communication directing the petitioners to file an Affidavit
accepting a penalty to the tune of Rs. 19,25,92,410/- as provided
under Section 63-AD of the Tenancy Act. On 02.01.2025,
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:03:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/17576/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
Mutation Entry No. 2773, the entry of the order of the GRT, was
mutated and certified, and the correct effect was also given in
Village Form No. 7/12.
5.12. It is also submitted that, upon a compromise on
24.12.2025, the sale deed dated dated 20.01.2005 was quashed
and set aside, by the competent Civil Court, by a compromise
decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 532 of 2025, wherein,
the Civil Court declared the sale deed dated 20.01.2005 as void
ab-initio.
6.1. Placing reliance on the aforesaid facts, Mr. Pandya,
the learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned order
passed by respondent no. 3 is beyond the orders passed by the
learned GRT, the order passed in the SCA No. 14770 of 2024 and
the Deputy Collector, wherein the case of the petitioner was
required to be considered for payment of premium, if applicable,
as per the undertaking given by the petitioner before the GRT.
By the impugned order, the respondent no. 3 herein has imposed
a penalty to the tune of Rs. 19,25,92,410/- considering the case
of the petitioners under Section 63AD of the Tenancy Act, which
is beyond jurisdiction. None of the aforesaid orders provide for
direction of payment of penalty as considered by respondent no.
3 herein by the impugned order dated 18.12.2024.
6.2. It is further submitted that the provision of Section
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:03:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/17576/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
63AD of the Tenancy Act is not applicable, in the facts of the
present case, as the alleged transaction is of 20.01.2005 and
Section 63AD of the Act is brought in force, w.e.f. 05.12.2015. It
is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein is an agriculturist.
It is submitted that, Section 63AD of the Act, will not have any
retrospective applicability and penalty cannot be imposed on the
transaction dated 20.01.2005. In view thereof also, the impugned
order passed by respondent no. 3 is contrary to the provisions of
Section 63AD of the Act.
7.1. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, the learned AGP, relies on the
affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no. 2 herein and submits
that no interference is called for in the impugned order passed
by respondent no. 3 herein, wherein, the sale between the
petitioner and Chandravadan Leelachand Bhalawat in the year
2005, for which Mutation Entry no. 1335 came to be registered
on 23.02.2005, and subsequent Mutation Entry No. 1390 was
mutated in the revenue record on 14.10.2006, is between the
petitioner herein, who is an agriculturist, and the subsequent
purchaser who was admittedly a non-agriculturist and is hit by
Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. In view thereof, the initiation of
the impugned proceedings is just and proper. However, since the
parties arrived at a settlement, respondent no. 3 exercised powers
under Section 63AD of the Tenancy Act, the petitioner herein is
required to pay an amount to the tune of Rs. 19,25,92,410/, as
Page 8 of 16
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:03:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/17576/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
provided under Section 63AD of the Tenancy Act, as a penalty
amounting to three times the Jantri value required to be paid by
the person who is not an agriculturist. It is submitted that no
interference is called for in the impugned order passed by
respondent no. 3 herein.
8.1. Mr. Pandya, the learned Senior Counsel, in rejoinder
reiterated the aforesaid submissions made herein-above and
further submits that the transaction in question is ordered to be
restored, and the same having been restored, the impugned
communication issued by respondent no. 3 is without any
authority of law. Even otherwise also, it is not open for
respondent no. 3 to impose a penalty upon the petitioner herein,
or act contrary to the provisions of Section 63AD of the Tenancy
Act.
8.2. The respondent no. 3 has ignored the orders passed
from time to time as referred to herein-above. To substantiate his
submissions, Mr. Pandya, the learned Senior Counsel, relies on
the decision reported in 2024(0) AIJEL-HC-248451 in the case of
Dalsukhbhai Chaturbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat, wherein,
the Hon’ble Division Bench considered the provisions of Section
84C and Section 63AD of the Tenancy Act and clarified the legal
position, having held that Section 63AD of the Tenancy Act
operates prospectively and would not affect transfers which were
carried out in violation of the provisions of Section 63(1)(a)(b)(c)
Page 9 of 16
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:03:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/17576/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
prior to the amendment.
8.3. It is submitted that, admittedly, in the facts of the
present case, the transaction between the petitioner and
Chandravadan Leelachand Bhalawat was prior to the Amendment.
Even otherwise, the parties having arrived at a settlement, the
registered sale deed was held to be void by the competent Civil
Court. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is
submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and
set aside.
9.1. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, the facts referred to herein-above are
undisputed, and therefore, the same are not repeated.
9.2. It emerges that upon perusal of the order dated
26.03.2024 passed by the GRT, duly produced at Annexure-B in
Revision Application No. Revision/VDD/117/2023, wherein,
considering the settlement arrived at between the parties, the
order dated 31.03.2021 passed in Tenancy Case No. 12 of 2021
by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Vadodara and order dated 12.07.2022
passed in Case No. Tenancy /Review / SR/89/2022 by the Deputy
Collector (Land Reforms), Vadodara came to be quashed and set
aside.
9.3. The land in question was restored in the name of the
original owner, i.e. the petitioner herein, declaring the petitioner
Page 10 of 16
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:03:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/17576/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
herein as the owner of the subject land and directing the
Mamlatdar to mutate the entry accordingly in the revenue record
and whatever premium, if any, was payable, would be paid by
the petitioner herein. The said order dated 26.03.2024 attained
finality.
9.4. The effect of the order is given in the revenue record
by way of Mutation Entry no. 2742 having been certified on
18.04.2024, (Page-22). The said effect is also given in the 7/12
record, (Page -23-24).
9.5. The petitioner herein preferred RTS Appeal No. 90 of
2024 before the Deputy Collector seeking a direction to give
effect to the order passed by the GRT dated 26.03.2024, wherein,
the said Appeal being Appeal No.90 of 2024 was allowed vide
order dated 07.06.2024, directing respondent no. 3 to give
correct effect to the order of the GRT, as referred to herein-
above.
9.6. The petitioner thereafter sought to give effect to the
order passed by the GRT on 18.07.2024. The petitioner was
constrained to prefer Special Civil Application No. 14770 of 2024
seeking the same reliefs, which was disposed of, by order dated
29.10.2024 with a direction to make a fresh Representation to
the Collector, which was ordered to be decided within 60 days.
9.7. The petitioner preferred a fresh representation to the
Page 11 of 16
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:03:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/17576/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
Collector- respondent no.2, on 04.11.2024 and further
submissions were made to the Collector on 06.11.2024.
9.8. Respondent No. 3, rather than complying with the
order passed by the GRT, proceeded to impose a penalty to the
tune of Rs.19,25,92,410/-, exercising powers under Section 63AD
of the Tenancy Act, which has given rise to the filing of the
present petition. The Mutation Entry no. 2773 was already given
effect to on 02.01.2025 and certified on 18.01.2025.
9.9. In the opinion of this Court, respondent no.3 -
Mamlatdar, exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing a penalty as
referred to herein-above, wherein, the same is beyond the
directions issued by the GRT by order 26.03.2024 which has
attained finality. The said order is directed to be complied with,
of which effect is to be given, by order as referred to herein-
above. The aforesaid issue is no longer res-integra, wherein, the
Hon’ble Division Bench in Dalsukhbhai Prajapati (supra), decided
the aforesaid issued, wherein, Section 63AD of the Tenancy Act,
is held to be prospective, the operation of Section 63AD of the
Tennacy Act, having come into effect on 05.12.2015, would
operate prospectively and would not affect the earlier transactions
for alleged breach of provisions of Section 63(1)(a)(b)(c) prior to
the Amendment.
9.10. At this stage it is apposite to refer to the decision
rendered in 2024(0) AIJEL-HC-248451 in the case of Dalsukhbhai
Page 12 of 16
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:03:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/17576/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
Chaturbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat, relevant paras-9 and 10
reads thus:
"9. Having held that the show-cause notice dated 06.06.2020
is beyond time, we would not be required to undertake the
very exercise that we should, however, what is apparent is
that pending Letters Patent Appeal No. 813 of 2020, the
revenue authorities proceeded to pass an order on merits
pursuant to the notice which was impugned in the first
round and an order dated 13.10.2020 was passed which
triggered Special Civil Application No. 1546 of 2020 which
the learned Single Judge of this court has dismissed on the
ground of an alternative remedy which has given rise to
consequential Letters Patent Appeal No. 349 of 2022. We
may therefore discuss the issue of application of Section
63AD. Section 63AD of the Tenancy Act which was inserted
and brought into force on 05.12.2015 reads as under:
“63AD. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section
84C, where the Mamalatdar suo moto or on the application
of any person, has reason to believe that, in the breach of
the provisions of clause (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of
section 63, transfer of the land has taken place in favour of
a person who is not a n agriculturist or in favour of any
institution, the Mamalatdar shall issue a notice to such
person or institution and, after affording an opportunity of
being heard, decide whether the
transfer of the land is valid or not.
(2) If the Mamalatdar comes to a decision that the transfer
of such land is not valid then he shall pass an order
thereby,-
(i) imposing the penalty of three times the amount of the
prevailing Jantri of such land on such person or institution
in whose favour such land is not validly transferred; and
(ii) directing the person or institution in whose favour such
land is not validly transferred to restore the land along with
the rights and interest there in to the position in which it
was immediately before such transfer within a period of one
month of such order.
Page 13 of 16
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:03:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/17576/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
Explanation - For the purpose of this Act, the expression
"Jantri" means the index of base market values as may be
determine by the State Government from time to time.”
9.1 Obviously, reading the provision indicates that it
overrides the provisions of Section 84C of the Tenancy Act.
The effect of the provision being substantive, the changes in
law take place are as under:
(i) 3 months period given to the parties to the transaction to
voluntarily restore the land along with rights and interest
therein to the position in which it was immediately before
the transfer or acquisition provided in Section 84-C is
substituted by a mandatory provision whereby the land will
have to be mandatorily restored by the transferee to the
transferor within a period of one month. Moreover, the
transferee will be penalised by an order imposing penalty of
three times the amount of the prevailing jantri value. Thus
what was voluntary reversal of transaction becomes
mandatory coupled with penalty.
(ii) Under Section 84-C on a lapse of a period of 3 months
property would vest in the State under Section 84-C(3) of
the Tenancy Act and shall disposed of under Section 84-C(4)
of the Tenancy Act as per priority list. This is given a go by
under Section 63AD and the property would never vest now
in the State and it will only revert to the original owner and
the original owner may be able to either getting it converted
to non-agricultural use and sell it to the non-agriculturist
purchaser again or may seek permission of the Collector and
sell to the non-agriculturist purchaser.
(iii) Section 63AD only applies if the transfer is in violation
of Section 63 (1) (a), (b) or (c). While Section 84-C continues
to apply even after 05.12.2015 in the transfer is in violation
of any other provision of the Tenancy Act including Section
43. So in so far as breach of Section 43 is concerned 84-C
would continue to apply while if there is any violation of
Section 63(1) (a), (b) or (c), Section 63AD will override
Section 84-C.
(iv) Section 63AD is a liberal provision in that the property
Page 14 of 16
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:03:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/17576/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
does not vest in the State but only reverts to the original
owner from the non-agriculturist and the non-agriculturist is
penalised.
9.2 Reading the aforesaid substantive changes in the law, we
cannot lose sight of the fact that the amendment which was
brought into effect from 05.12.2015 would operate
prospectively and not affect transfers which were carried out
in alleged violations of the provisions of Section 63(1)(a)(b)
(c) prior to 29.01.1980, 09.05.1991 and though the sale in
favour of the appellant was affected on 14.02.2017, after
coming into the force of the provisions of Section 63AD,
however, the same being in favour of an agriculturist, there
was no breach of provisions of Section 63(1)(a)(b)(c). Even
otherwise, in light of the show-cause notice being beyond
the period of one year, the order dated 13.10.2020 which
was a subject-matter of a subsequent petition which gives
rise to Letters Patent Appeal No. 349 of 2022 would not
stand.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, therefore, Letters Patent
Appeals No. 813 of 2020 and 349 of 2022 are allowed. The
orders of the learned Single Judge in the respective petitions
are quashed and set aside. Connected civil applications are
disposed of. No costs.”
9.11. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, the
transaction in question is of the year 2005, and therefore,
provision of Section 63AD of the Tenancy Act would not be
applicable to the transaction which took place before the said
provision, i.e. Section 63AD came into force w.e.f. 05.12.2015.
9.12. It is also not in dispute that, subsequent thereto, the
parties having arrived at a settlement in the suit proceedings
being Regular Civil Suit No. 532 of 2025, the registered sale
Page 15 of 16
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:03:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/17576/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
deed dated 20.01.2005 was held to be void ab-initio, and in view
thereof, the said sale deed is quashed and set aside. The
petitioner herein being an agriculturist, as such, in view thereof
also, is not required to pay any penalty under Section 63AD of
the Tenancy Act, as the transaction in question has already been
reversed by a decree of competent Court and the applicability of
Section 63 AD of the Tenancy Act would not affect the
transaction of the petitioner.
10. Be that as it may, the impugned order dated
18.12.2024 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT (Annexure-I) being
beyond jurisdiction, for the reasons as referred to herein-above,
in exercise of powers under Article-226 of the Constitution of
India, is required to be quashed and set aside, and the same is
hereby quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the present Petition stands ALLOWED. Rule is
made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
Pradhyuman
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:03:55 IST 2026