KIRITBHAI MANIBHAI PATEL vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10697 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KIRITBHAI MANIBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4
MR. SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 02/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) By way of filing present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, petitioners herein have prayed for
following reliefs:
‘’(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and
setting aside order dated 5.5.2016 passed in
CB/CTS-2/SJF/Odhav/CC No.349/Wada Land/SCA No.3232/2014
passed by the learned District Collector, Ahmedabad and further be
pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider the
application/case of the petitioner for deciding the occupancy price
within the time that may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the
interest of justice;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to hold and declare that view
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
taken by the learned District Collector is ex-facie contrary to law and
without jurisdiction and bad in law;
(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition,
YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent authority
to consider the application/case of the petitioner for deciding the
occupancy price within some such stipulated time that may be
deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court;
(D) Any other and further relief that may be deemed fit by this
Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice;’’
2) The case of the petitioners can be summarised, in a
nutshell, as under:
2.1) The petitioners herein are in possession and occupation of
the Wada land bearing City Survey No. 349 situated at Moje
Odhav, Taluka City, Ahmedabad, since long. The said property
falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Gamtal area of village
and, therefore, the provisions of the “Wada Sahita Rules and
Regulations” are squarely applicable. The Government of Gujarat
had issued a Government Resolution dated 22.06.1968, pursuant
to which an application dated 03.09.1970 came to be submitted
by the father of the petitioners before the Collector seeking
regularization of the said Wada land adjacent to the agricultural
land of the petitioners. The said application was not entertained
by the District Collector on the ground that the property was not
entered in the Wada Register and, therefore, the application
could not be entertained. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
said decision of the District Collector, a Revision Application
came to be preferred before the SSRD, which was allowed by
Page 2 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
quashing and setting aside the order passed by the authority
concerned and remanding the matter to the District Collector for
fresh consideration after affording an appropriate opportunity of
hearing to the parties. The said order came to be passed by the
SSRD on 30.07.1971. Despite the matter having been remanded
to the office of the District Collector, no action was initiated by
the revenue authorities. The father of the petitioners waited for
a considerable period and, thereafter, in the year 1997,
submitted a detailed representation in the matter; however, no
action was taken by the authorities. Consequently, several
representations came to be made by the father of the petitioners
before various Government authorities.
2.2) On 20.08.1998, the father of the petitioners received a
communication from the office of the District Collector stating
that the application could not be entertained as his name was not
found in the Wada Register. Once again, the said order was
challenged by way of a Revision Application before the SSRD,
which was considered and the matter was again remanded to the
authority concerned for fresh adjudication. Thereafter, the
petitioners made inquiries regarding the status of the
proceedings, however, at that relevant point of time, they could
not obtain the requisite information. Consequently, an
application under the Right to Information Act came to be
preferred and through the information received thereunder, the
petitioners came to know that their application had been
rejected. Therefore, a Revision Application came to be preferred
Page 3 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
before the SSRD specifically pointing out that, during the
pendency of the proceedings, the father of the petitioners had
passed away on 22.03.2004 and that the authority had passed an
order against a dead person. Considering the said aspect, the
Revision Application preferred by the petitioners came to be
allowed and the matter was once again remanded to the office of
the District Collector. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted an
application dated 12.09.2011 requesting the District Collector to
decide the matter. Subsequently, on 14.10.2013, the petitioners
received a communication from the office of the District
Collector informing them that the application had been rejected
on the ground that the land in question fell within the territorial
limit of the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation and therefore,
the application could not be entertained.
2.3) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision of
the District Collector, the petitioners preferred a writ petition
before this Court. The said petition came to be considered by this
Court vide order dated 09.12.2014, whereby a specific direction
was issued to the Collector to decide the matter afresh. Pursuant
to the said order, notice came to be issued by the respondent
authority directing the petitioners to remain present on the
scheduled date of hearing. Thereafter, once again, the
application of the petitioners came to be dismissed by the
authority concerned. However, while deciding the said
application, the Collector failed to consider the documents and
material placed on record by the petitioners. Furthermore, while
Page 4 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
remanding the matter, this Court had issued specific directions
requiring consideration of certain aspects and issues raised in the
proceedings. Nevertheless, no discussion whatsoever with regard
to the said aspects is reflected in the impugned order. Hence, the
present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by
the authority concerned.
3) Heard learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit appearing for
the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Siddharth Rami for
Respondent – State.
4) Learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit appearing for the
petitioners has reiterated the aforesaid factual aspects by
referring to various documents forming part of the record and
submitted that the issue involved in the present matter lies in a
narrow compass. However, the matter has a chequered history
on account of the callous attitude adopted by the revenue
authorities, due to which the petitioners have been constrained
to pursue the matter for several decades. He submitted that in
fact, Government had introduced a scheme by issuing
Government Resolutions pursuant to which an application came
to be preferred by the father of the petitioners seeking
regularization of the land and mutation of the relevant entry in
the Wada Register. He further submitted that several other
similarly situated villagers had also preferred identical
applications, which came to be considered by the authorities.
However, the application of the petitioners came to be rejected
Page 5 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
on the ground that the property in question was not reflected in
the Wada Register and therefore, in absence of any such entry,
the application could not be entertained.
4.1) Being aggrieved by the said decision, a Revision Application
came to be preferred before the SSRD. During the pendency of
the said proceedings, the relevant record was called for and
ultimately, it was found that entries relating to the property in
question were found available in the Wada Patra/Wada Register.
The name of the applicant as well as the relevant entry
numbered in the register were specifically recorded in the
operative part of the order passed by the SSRD and
consequently, the matter came to be remanded to the authority
concerned for fresh consideration. Despite the specific directions
issued by the higher authority requiring the District Collector to
decide the application afresh, the authority concerned sat tight
over the matter and failed to consider the application on merits
for a considerable long period of time. Due to which, the
petitioners constrained to address several representations to
various Government authorities seeking appropriate action in the
matter, but reasons known to the authorities concerned, no heed
was paid tot he request of the petitioners.
4.2) Learned advocate Mr. Purohit further submitted that only
after repeated representations, some action came to be initiated
by the revenue authorities and a fresh decision was taken.
However, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioners, a
Page 6 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
communication was received from the office of the Collector
whereby the application again came to be rejected on the very
same ground that neither the name of the applicant nor the
property in question was reflected in the record of rights (Wada
Patra). This was despite the fact that, while remanding the
matter, the higher authority had already verified the said aspect
and had recorded specific findings regarding the existence of the
relevant entries. He submitted that, without verifying the record
and considering the specific facts given by the SSRD pertaining to
existence of entry mutated in the Wada register and in a wholly
mechanical manner, the authority concerned once again rejected
the application by assigning the very same reasons which had
already been disapproved by the revisional authority. The said
view of the authority concerned itself prima facie found to be
illegal and erroneous and came to be quashed and set aside.
4.3) Learned advocate further submitted that once the
aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of the revisional
authority, the order passed by the District Collector again came
to be quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh
consideration. However, after lapse of considerable time, the
authority concerned passed yet another order assigning
altogether different reasons. During the interregnum period, the
area in question had come within the revenue limit of the
territorial jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation and
therefore, the application could not be entertained. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said decision, the petitioners
Page 7 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition. This Court
considered the matter and remanded it to the Collector
concerned for fresh adjudication. Even while remanding the
proceedings, this Court had specifically identified the issues
required to be considered by the authority concerned. Despite
the same, the application once again came to be rejected.
4.4) He submitted that if this Court would make cursory glance
upon the contents of the operative part of the impugned order,
it would reveal that no justifiable reasons have been assigned by
the authority concerned while deciding the application and
therefore, solely on that count, the impugned order deserves to
be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that once a
matter is remanded by a higher authority, with a specific
direction, in that event, it is the duty of the authority concerned
to decide the same within a reasonable time and bring the
proceedings to its logical conclusion. In the present case,
although the first remand order came to be passed by the SSRD
several decades ago, no effective action was initiated by the
office of the District Collector for a considerable period and the
petitioners were compelled to submit numerous representations
before any decision was taken.
4.5) Learned advocate Mr. Purohit further submitted that the
entire sequence of events of incident clearly demonstrates that
the delay has occurred solely on account of the inaction on the
part of the revenue authorities. During the interregnum period,
Page 8 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
much water has flown under the bridge and owing to
administrative changes, the territorial jurisdiction of several
areas underwent modification and the village in question
ultimately came to be included within the revenue limits of the
territory of Municipal Corporation. However, such subsequent
developments cannot be attributed to the petitioners, nor can
the petitioners be found faulted with, for circumstances which
were entirely beyond their control. Therefore, the authority
concerned ought not to have rejected the application merely on
the ground that the territorial jurisdiction of the property had
subsequently changed.
4.6) Learned advocate submitted that the aforesaid factual
aspects clearly indicate that, under one pretext or another, the
application preferred by the petitioners has continuously been
dismissed, thereby causing unnecessary harassment to them. It is
also an admitted position of fact that similar applications
preferred by other persons had already been considered by the
authorities at that relevant point of time. Considering the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, learned advocate
submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed and the
impugned order passed by the authority concerned deserves to
be quashed and set aside.
5) Learned AGP Mr. Siddharth Rami appearing for the
Respondent–State submitted that the present matter has a
chequered history. On two occasions, orders passed by the
Page 9 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
District Collector came to be challenged by the applicants before
the SSRD and the said proceedings were allowed by remanding
the matter to the District Collector for fresh consideration.
Thereafter, the orders passed by the authority concerned were
challenged before this Court by way of writ petition. He
submitted that the father of the petitioners had preferred an
application in the year 1970 on the basis of the Government
Resolution dated 22.06.1968. After verification and scrutiny of
the documents and material available on record, the authority
concerned arrived at the conclusion that the property of the
petitioners was not recorded in the Wada Register/record of
rights and therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence,
the application could not be entertained. However, the said order
came to be challenged before the SSRD by way of a Revision
Application, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to
the authority concerned for fresh consideration.
5.1) Learned AGP further submitted that it emerges from the
record that after the initial proceedings, representations came to
be made by the petitioners only after a considerable lapse of
time. The petitioners remained inactive for a long period and did
not pursue the proceedings with due diligence. Therefore, the
delay occasioned in the matter cannot be attributed solely to the
authorities concerned. He submitted that during the interregnum
period, the area in question came to be included within the
territorial limits of the Municipal Corporation and therefore, the
authority concerned has rightly taken the said aspect into
Page 10 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
consideration while deciding the application. Learned AGP,
therefore, submitted that the impugned order does not suffer
from any illegality, arbitrariness or jurisdictional error warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Hence, the present petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to
be dismissed.
6) Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and having considered the documents and
material available on record, before dwelling into the issue
involved in the present petition, it would be appropriate to
briefly refer to the sequence of events of incidents that have
transpired in the matter: The petitioners are in possession and
occupation of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 349 situated
at Moje Odha, Taluka City, Ahmedabad. Adjacent to the said
agricultural land, there exists a Wada land, which is attached to
and has been used and utilised by the petitioners for several
years. The State Government, with a view to implementing the
provisions of the Wada Sahita Rules and Regulations, issued a
Government Resolution dated 22.06.1968 providing for
regularization of properties required to be entered in the Wada
Register. Pursuant thereto, the father of the petitioners
submitted an application on 03.09.1970 before the District
Collector seeking regularization of the Wada land situated
adjacent to the agricultural land. The said application came to be
rejected on the ground that the property was not reflected in the
Wada Register and therefore, the request could not be
Page 11 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
entertained. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
decision, the father of the petitioners preferred a revision
application before the SSRD. The revisional authority, after
considering the record and providing appropriate opportunity of
hearing to both the parties, quashed and set aside the order of
the District Collector and remanded the matter for fresh
consideration.
6.1) By making cursory glance upon the contents of the
operative part of the order passed by the SSRD, it would reveal
that the revisional authority had categorically stated that the
property in question was already reflected in the Wada Register
and had even referred to the relevant entry number. After
assigning clear observations, the matter was remanded for
verification of record as well as for fresh consideration. It further
emerges from the record that after the remand order, no
decision was taken by the District Collector for a long period.
During the interregnum period, the father of the petitioners
addressed several representations to various authorities
requesting disposal of the application, however, no effective
action was taken. Thereafter, one fine day, i.e. on 28.08.1998, a
communication was received from the office of the District
Collector stating that the said application could not be
entertained as the name of the applicant was not found available
in the Wada Register. Once again, a revision application was
preferred before the SSRD. The revisional authority, after
considering the factual aspects of the case, allowed the revision
Page 12 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
application and remanded the matter with a specific direction to
decide the matter afresh after granting an opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned.
6.2) It is further revealed from the record that no effective
action was taken by the District Collector. Consequently, an
application under the Right to Information Act was submitted to
ascertain the status of the proceedings. At that relevant point of
time, the petitioners came to know that the application had
already been rejected. Thereafter, another revision application
was preferred before the SSRD specifically pointing out that
during the pendency of the proceedings, the father of the
petitioners had expired on 22.03.2004 and that the order had
been passed against a dead person without affording any
opportunity to his legal heirs. Considering the said facts, the
revisional authority once again allowed the revision application
and remanded the matter to the District Collector. Thereafter,
the petitioners submitted an application dated 12.09.2011
requesting the authority to decide the said pending application.
However, no heed was paid to the said request. However,
thereafter, on 14.10.2013, a communication was received
informing the petitioners that the application had been rejected
on the ground that the land in question had fallen within the
territorial limits of the Municipal Corporation and, therefore, the
request could not be entertained.
6.3) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision, the
Page 13 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
petitioners approached this Court. The petition came to be
allowed by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2014, whereby the
matter was remanded with a specific direction to the competent
authority to decide the proceedings afresh after providing
appropriate opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
Pursuant thereto, proceedings initiated and ultimately, the
authority once again rejected the said application by reiterating
the reasons mentioned in the eariler order. However, while doing
so, the authority failed to independently examine the documents
and material available on record. It is a matter of fact on record
that while disposing of the earlier petition, this Court had
specifically referred to the entire history of the proceedings and
had directed the authority to consider those material aspects in
true spirit and proper perspective. The impugned order, however,
does not reflect any consideration of those aspects. It is an
admitted position of fact that the Government Resolution issued
on 22.06.1968 to give effect to the statutory requirement of
provisions contained in the Wada Sahita Rules and Regulations. It
is the specific case of the petitioners that the father of the
petitioners had specifically asserted that the petitioners were in
possession and occupation of the Wada land adjoining Survey No.
349 and that the relevant entry was required to be recorded
after verifying the record in accordance with law. The original
application came to be rejected solely on the ground that the
name of the applicant was not reflected in the Wada Register.
However, when the matter reached the revisional authority, the
record was called for verification and examination purpose.
Page 14 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
Thereafter, upon verification of the record, the SSRD specifically
recorded that the property of the petitioners was already
reflected in the Wada Register and even referred to the relevant
entry number. By assigning the said findings, the matter was
remanded back to enable the District Collector to decide the case
afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing.
6.4) The record further reveals that the first remand order was
passed far back in the year 1971. However, the next
communication rejecting the application was received only in the
year 1998. What transpired in the office of the District Collector
during this period of nearly twenty-seven years remains
unexplained. Furthermore, when proceedings are revived
pursuant to a remand order, it is incumbent upon the authority to
provide an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the affected
parties before arriving at any conclusion. Such an opportunity
was not granted in the present case and the application came to
be rejected despite the categorical observations made by the
SSRD regarding the existence of the entry in the Wada Register.
No convincing reasons were assigned by the authority for taking
a view contrary to the findings recorded by the revisional
authority. The matter was thereafter remanded once again. Even
then, the authority failed to provide an effective opportunity of
hearing and proceeded to pass an adverse ex-parte order. The
said order was challenged before the SSRD on the ground that it
had been passed against a dead person. The revisional authority
accepted the grievance and once again remanded the matter for
Page 15 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
fresh adjudication.
6.5) The record further demonstrates that instead of examining
the merits of the claim, the authority shifted its stand and
rejected the application on the ground that the property had, in
the meantime, fallen within the revenue limits of territorial
jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation. However, no provision
of law was referred to, nor any cogent reason assigned, to show
how the inclusion of the property within municipal limits would
extinguish or defeat the rights otherwise available to the
petitioners under the applicable rules and Government
Resolution.
6.6) The said order also came to be quashed and set aside by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to decide the
matter afresh. Despite repeated remands and specific directions
issued by superior authorities, the revenue authority once again
rejected the application merely reiterating that the property falls
within the revenue limits of territorial jurisdiction of the
Municipal Corporation. Except for repeating the said ground, no
independent findings have been recorded. The aforesaid
sequence of events of incidents clearly demonstrates a callous
and indifferent approach on the part of the revenue authorities.
The record reflects that despite repeated remand orders passed
by the SSRD and this Court, the authorities remained unwilling to
consider the matter in its true spirit and proper perspective.
Rather than examining the merits of the petitioners' claim, the
Page 16 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
application appears to have been repeatedly rejected on
technical and unsustainable grounds. This Court also finds
substance in the grievance of the petitioners that the authorities
have consistently failed to comply with the directions issued by
the superior forums. The manner in which the proceedings have
been conducted indicates an undue reluctance to decide the
matter in accordance with law and the material available on
record.
6.7) During the course of hearing, it was contended on behalf of
the respondents that after the remand order of 1971, no
application was submitted by the father of the petitioners until
1998 and, therefore, the delay was attributable to the petitioners
themselves. This Court is unable to accept the said contention.
Once a remand order is passed by the revisional authority, the
proceedings stand revived before the authority to whom the
matter is remanded. In such circumstances, it is not expected that
a fresh application should be filed by the party concerned. The
obligation to proceed with and decide the remanded proceedings
rests upon the authority itself.
6.8) Moreover, the record reveals that several representations
were submitted by the father of the petitioners during the
intervening period. Therefore, the delay cannot be attributed to
the petitioners. On the contrary, the responsibility for such
prolonged inaction lies solely upon the revenue authorities. If,
during this prolonged period of administrative inaction, the
Page 17 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/10697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
property came within the territorial limits of the Municipal
Corporation, in that event, the petitioners cannot be made to
suffer for a situation created entirely due to the failure of the
authorities to decide the proceedings within a reasonable time.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be
sustained for a moment in the eyes of law. The same deserves to
be quashed and set aside. The authority concerned is required to
give effect to the entry pertaining to the petitioners in the Wada
Register in accordance with the findings already recorded by the
revisional authority and the material available on record.
7) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
matter, the present petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed .
The impugned order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the learned
District Collector, Ahmedabad in CB/CTS-2/SJF/Odhav/CC
No.349/Wada Land/SCA No.3232/2014 is hereby quashed and set
aside. The respondent authorities are directed to consider and
decide the petitioner's application/case for determination of
occupancy price in accordance with law, within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
GARVITA
Page 18 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 17:06:52 IST 2026