YASINMIYA KASAMALI SAIYAD vs COLLECTOR
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/8849/2008 (GJHC240407502008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8849 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
YASINMIYA KASAMALI SAIYAD
Versus
COLLECTOR & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARAT T RAO(697) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNJ KANARA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 02/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has
prayed to quash and set aside the impugned
order dated 9.10.2007 (17.10.2007) passed by
learned Joint Secretary (Appeals), Revenue
Department, Ahmedabad in Revision No.18 of
2006 confirming the order dated 25.7.2006
passed by respondent No.1 – Collector.
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 15:35:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/8849/2008 (GJHC240407502008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. B. T. Rao for the
petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara
for respondents. Perused the record.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has
contented that the petitioner is in
possession of a parcel of land admeasuring
about 500 square meter situated at village
Nandasan, Taluka Kadi, District Mahesana,
bearing Revenue Survey No.619. The total
measurement of the aforesaid revenue survey
number is 900 square meters. The case of the
petitioner is that his predecessors were in
possession of the land admeasuring about 500
square meters of Revenue Survey No.619 for a
period of 60 years. The land is occupied for
the purpose of agriculture, storing
agriculture equipments and cattle. An
application dated 13.7.1999 was filed for
regularization of the said land. On 4.2.2000,
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 15:35:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/8849/2008 (GJHC240407502008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
request for regularization was rejected by
learned Collector. The learned SSRD (Appeals)
remanded the matter back to learned Collector
for deciding a fresh. On remand, the learned
Collector, Mahesana rejected the application
vide order dated 25.7.2006. The said order
was assailed before learned Special
Secretary, Revenue Department, (Appeals),
Ahmedabad, who, by order dated 17.10.2007,
rejected the revision application filed by
petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the said order, the petitioner is before
this Court.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner,
contended that the petitioner and their
predecessor were in possession of the land in
question for more than 60 years and
petitioner is having his ownership land
adjoining the questioned land in which
Page 3 of 11
Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 15:35:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/8849/2008 (GJHC240407502008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
petitioner is doing agricultural activities.
Against the rejection of the application by
the learned Collector, petitioner approached
learned SSRD by way of revision application,
wherein, prayer for stay came to be rejected
on dated 8.8.2006. The rejection order was
carried before this Court by preferring
Special Civil Application No.17828 of 2006.
Vide order dated 22.8.2006, the coordinate
bench of this Court rejected the petition
against which Letters Patent Appeal No.113 of
2006 was filed by petitioner. Vide order
dated 8.8.2007, Hon’ble Division Bench of
this Court granted status quo of the land and
the Revenue Authority was directed to dispose
of revision application. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has relied upon
the Government Resolution dated 1.6.1993
which empowers the authority to regularize
encroachment carried out by any person. It is
further submitted that the Collector, as per
Page 4 of 11
Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 15:35:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/8849/2008 (GJHC240407502008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
the notification dated 1.6.1993 is empowered
to consider request for regularization.
Learned SSRD while rejecting revision
application did not consider the said
resolution. It is further submitted that in
Civil Application No.8667 of 2012 in Special
Civil Application No.8849 of 2008, pursuant
to an order passed by Coordinate Bench of
this Court, Panchnama of the land in question
was carried out and as per report dated
13.11.2014 which is placed on record at page
No.33 of Civil Application No.8667 of 2012,
petitioner is in possession of the disputed
land. It is, therefore, submitted that even
today, petitioner is in possession of the
questioned land.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has
further raised a contention that in similar
type of request for regularization,
Page 5 of 11
Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 15:35:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/8849/2008 (GJHC240407502008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
Government has regularized possession of one,
Ahmad Hussain Kasam Ali Saiyed, by order
dated 29-3-2001. It is submitted that the
said person was occupying part of survey
No.619/A of the same village. On parity also,
request for regularization ought to have been
granted by the learned collector.
6. The government authority under Section 61 of
the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 has
recovered penalties for the period between
1940 up to 2000 from petitioner. The
petitioner is also having an electric
connection on the questioned land. Raising
all these contentions, a request is made by
learned advocate for the petitioner that as
the Government Resolution dated 8.1.1980
coupled with a resolution dated 1.6.1993
issued by the State Government, a fair chance
be given to approach the concerned
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 15:35:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/8849/2008 (GJHC240407502008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
authorities for re-appreciating the case of
petitioner. No other submissions are made
except the above.
7. Per contra , learned AGP for the respondent,
at the outset contended that petitioner is
not doing any agricultural activities on the
questioned land, but according to petitioner,
he is in possession of the land for the
purpose of storing cattle and agricultural
products. It is, therefore, submitted that
the question of hardship does not tilt in
favour of petitioner. Petitioner has also
admitted that he is unauthorizedly occupying
the land in question and, therefore, penalty
has been recovered by respondent. Learned AGP
further contended that resolution dated
1.6.1993 is an enabling resolution to a
resolution dated 8.1.1980. The petitioner
being an unauthorised occupant, petitioner
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 15:35:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/8849/2008 (GJHC240407502008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
cannot claim benefit of government resolution
for regularizing his possession. No other
submissions are made except the above.
8. Upon perusal of the papers and on considering
the submissions canvassed by learned
advocates for the parties, the petitioner is
asserting possession over a land admeasuring
about 500 square meters situated in Revenue
Survey No. 619 of City Survey No.252 at
village Nandasan, Taluka Kadi, District
Mahesana. Petitioner and his predecessors are
claiming to be in possession of the land
admeasuring about 500 square meters for 60
years. Before the date of an application for
regularization i.e. 13.7.1999, a request for
regularization was rejected by learned
Collector on 4.2.2000. However, learned SSRD,
Ahmedabad, by order dated 30.11.2005 remanded
the matter back to the Collector for deciding
Page 8 of 11
Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 15:35:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/8849/2008 (GJHC240407502008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
the application a fresh. On remand, the
learned Collector, Mahesana rejected the
request for regularization and directed
removal of encroachment. Petitioner being
dissatisfied on rejection, approached this
Court. The coordinate bench of this Court
vide order dated 22.8.2006 rejected Special
Civil Application No.17828 of 2006, against
which, Letters Patent Appeal was filed by
petitioner and Hon’ble Division Bench of this
Court, granted status quo to be maintained
with regard to possession.
9. During the course of submission, learned
advocate for the petitioner relied upon the
Government Resolution dated 1.6.1993 which
empowers the Collector to exercise its powers
pursuant to the Government Resolution dated
8.1.1982 to regularize encroachment up to 8
acres of land. In view of this resolution, a
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 15:35:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/8849/2008 (GJHC240407502008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
request was made by learned advocate for the
petitioner permitting the petitioner to
approach the concerned authorities with a
fresh application to regularize land
admeasuring about 500 square meters which is
in occupation of petitioner.
10. The record reveals that Panchnama of disputed
land was carried out as per direction of
order passed in Civil Application No.8667 of
2014 in Special Civil Application No.8849 of
2008. As per Panchnama dated 13.11.2014, the
petitioner was found in possession of the
land in question. Considering the aforesaid
facts that in 2014, petitioner is in
possession, petitioner is permitted to
approach concerned authorities for a request
to regularize possession of the land in
question admeasuring about 500 square meters
within a period of two weeks from today .
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 15:35:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/8849/2008 (GJHC240407502008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
Resultantly, the application, if any
submitted, shall be decided within a period
of 2 months in accordance with law and as per
policy of Government by concerned authorities
independently and without being influenced by
the orders dated 25.7.2006 passed by learned
Collector, Mahesana and the order dated 9-10-
2007 (17.10.2007) in Revision No.18 of 2006
by learned Joint Secretary, Revenue
Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad. Both the impugned orders are
hereby quashed and set aside.
11. The petition stands disposed of in above
terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No
order as to costs.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
vk
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 15:35:58 IST 2026