BRIJGOPAL PREMRAJ THROUGH POA NATVARLAL MOHANLAL TALA vs SPECIAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (DISPUTES)
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/15768/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15768 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=============================================
BRIJGOPAL PREMRAJ THROUGH POA NATVARLAL MOHANLAL TALA
Versus
SPECIAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (DISPUTES) & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR BHUVNESH GAHLOT(10286) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 06/05/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Jayneel Parikh,
learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf
of the respondent – State authorities.
2. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has
invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India having prayed
for the following reliefs:
“A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition.
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jun 01 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 01 14:33:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/15768/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
B. Your Lordships may be pleased to stay order Judgment passed
by Collector, Rajkot Revision no.LAND/REVISION/108(6)1/04/05 dated
21-03-2006 and Special Secretary Revenue Department in Revision
Application no.MVV/JMN/RJT/03/2006 order dated 26/12/2013 till final
disposal of this matter in the interest of justice.
C. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari
and/or a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate
writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside order Judgment
passed by Collector, Rajkot Revision no.LAND/REVISION/108(6)1/04/05
dated 21-03-2006 and Special Secretary Revenue Department in
Revision Application no.MVV/JMN/RJT/03/2006 order dated 26/12/2013.
D. Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent
authorities to grant full back wages to the petitioner.
E. Be pleased to pass such other and further reliefs as the nature
and circumstances of the case may require.”
3. Heard Mr. Bhuvnesh Gahlot, learned advocate appearing
for the petitioner and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP
appearing for the respondent - State authorities.
4. The petitioner herein has challenged the order passed by
the Collector, Rajkot, in Revision
No.LAND/REVISION/108(6)1/04/05, dated 21.03.2006, duly
confirmed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, in
Revision Application No.MVV/JMN/RJT/03/2006 by order dated
26.12.2013, which has given rise to the filing of the present
petition.
5. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition
read thus:
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jun 01 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 01 14:33:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/15768/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
5.1 The petitioner herein was in Military and hence, was
allotted Sathni New Tenure Land bearing Survey No.328 paiki
admeasuring 10-00 acres, situated at Village : Vadali, Taluka :
Rajkot, District : Rajkot, by allotment letter dated 29.08.1974.
Copy of the allotment letter dated 29.08.1974 is duly produced
at Annexure – C to the petition, wherein, the land was handed
over to the Power of Attorney (POA) holder of the petitioner,
one Mr. Mahesh, in accordance with the aforesaid order by
Rojkam as the petitioner was serving on the post of Military
Man. The petitioner also paid Rs.360/- before Talati-cum-Mantri
on 28.09.1974 by receipt No.57, which was later confirmed
vide sanad dated 06.02.1975.
5.2 The petitioner was having the land, cultivated by other
person as the petitioner was on duty. The Revenue Officer
declined to mutate the entry in Village Form no.6 hence, upon
petitioner’s application, later the entry was mutated on
04.04.2000 in village form no.6 bearing entry No.1218, which
was certified on 04.04.2002.
5.3 The petitioner applied for conversion from new tenure to
old tenure, which was converted by order dated 17.06.2002
Page 3 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jun 01 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 01 14:33:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/15768/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
bearing No.JMN/Vashi/1718/2002, passed by the Mamlatdar.
The petitioner also made payment of Rs.1800/-. Copy of the
said order is duly produced at Annexure – F to the petition. The
order was sent for permission to the Deputy Collector, Rajkot,
who rejected the same, which gave rise to the appeal before
the Collector, who also rejected the appeal and further ordered
to take the Entry No.1218 in revision.
5.4 The Collector issued show cause notice dated 20.08.2004
in Revision No.LAND/REVISION/108(6)1/04/05 against the
mutated entry No.1218 raising the questions. The petitioner
replied to the said show cause notice, which is duly produced
at Annexure – H to the petition. The Collector by the impugned
order dated 21.03.2006 cancelled the entry No.1218, which
came to be confirmed by the learned SSRD, by order dated
26.12.2013 passed in Revision Application
No.MVV/JMN/RJT/03/2006.
5.5 It is the case of the petitioner that the copy of the order
was neither received by the petitioner nor provided to the
petitioner’s advocate and in view thereof, there was a delay in
challenging the order. Later file was found with the authority
and application was made for certified copy on 17.07.2018,
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jun 01 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 01 14:33:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/15768/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
which was received by the petitioner on even date and in view
thereof, there is a delay in preferring the present petition. The
petitioner is an aged person and has given Power of Attorney,
which is duly produced at Annexure – K to the petition.
6. Mr. Bhuvnesh Gahlot, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner submits that the impugned orders are required to be
interfered with on the ground that the show cause notice
issued by the Collector, dated 20.08.2004, required the
petitioner to answer why there was no record with respect to
entry mutated after 26 years, to verify the entry no.1218 and
the order passed by the Mamlatdar, dated 17.06.2002,
converting the land from new tenure to old tenure just by
stating that the land is cultivated for 15 years. It is submitted
that the impugned order is silent as to how the petitioner
herein is in breach of any of the conditions of the order of
allotment dated 29.08.1974. It is submitted that merely
suggesting that the Mamlatdar should be cautious in certifying
the entry, the competent authorities could not have held the
petitioner responsible for the breach of condition of the
allotment order.
6.1 It is submitted that the Collector has erred in deciding the
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jun 01 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 01 14:33:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/15768/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
revision presuming that there is a lapse on the part of the
petitioner. It is submitted that presumption of procedural lapse
does not provide any right to cancel a certified entry more
particularly, the Collector himself ought to have verified post-
facto that the mentioned compliance has been made by the
petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned orders are on the
suspicion because there is delay in mutating the entry of 26
years. It is submitted that the competent authorities held that
the Mamlatdar has not verified with respect to the non-
payment of land revenue for 26 years. It is submitted that for
the first 3 years, it is exempted for military person, later due to
absence of knowledge, the same was not paid, however, no
notice is issued by the competent authority for payment of
land revenue. When the question was raised by the Mamlatdar
at the time of entry, the petitioner paid all the outstanding land
revenue and hence, there is no breach or notice of breach of
non payment of land revenue. In view thereof, the impugned
orders are required to be quashed and set aside.
7. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the
respondent – State authorities submits that no interference is
called for in the impugned orders passed by the competent
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jun 01 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 01 14:33:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/15768/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
authorities wherein, admittedly, though the petitioner was
allotted the land on 29.08.1974, the petitioner herein made no
effort to have the entry mutated in the revenue record. It is
submitted that the learned SSRD by the order dated
26.12.2013, confirmed the order passed by the learned
Collector, dated 21.03.2006, wherein, the competent
authorities arrived at conclusion that the petitioner herein is in
breach of conditions of the allotment order. That, the petitioner
herein has failed to comply with the conditions and that, there
is a subsisting power of attorney as also, the petitioner is not
residing at the said place and in view thereof, the petitioner
herein having not cultivated the land-in-question wherein, the
7/12 records for the interregnum period are not produced by
the petitioner, the entry No.1218 mutated in the revenue
record on 04.04.2002 is ordered to be cancelled.
8. Mr. Bhuvnesh Gehlot, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner, in rejoinder, reiterates the submissions advanced
earlier and submitted that the prayers as prayed for in the
present petition be allowed.
9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it is not in
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jun 01 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 01 14:33:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/15768/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
dispute that the copy of the impugned order was neither
received by the petitioner nor provided to the petitioner’s
advocate informing that the matter has ben decided by the
department as the file was misplaced during the transfer of
office of SSRD to new location therefore, the advocate for the
petitioner inquired extensively about the case by
communication dated 07.07.2015 about the status of the case.
The said communication dated 07.07.2015 is duly produced at
Annexure – J to the petition. The file was located with the
authority and application for certified copy was made on
17.07.2018 and was received knowing that the revision was
rejected. The petitioner thereafter, approached other advocate
for further appeal for approaching the Hon’ble High Court,
which resulted in delay from 2013 to 2019.
9.1 The petitioner herein was in Military and hence, was
allotted Sathni New Tenure Land bearing Survey No.328 paiki
admeasuring 10-00 acres, situated at Village : Vadali, Taluka :
Rajkot, District : Rajkot, by allotment letter dated 29.08.1974
duly produced at Annexure – C to the petition on certain
conditions.
9.2 It emerges that the petitioner herein has duly produced;
Page 8 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jun 01 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 01 14:33:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/15768/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
(a) Form No.4 at page 38; (b) rojkam dated 03.10.1977 duly
produced at page 39 to the petition; (c) the map drawn duly
produced at page 40 to the petition and; (d) the possession is
handed over to the power of attorney holder of the petitioner,
upon measurement for land bearing Survey No.328 paiki,
admeasuring 10 acres.
9.3 In terms of the allotment order, the onus was on the
respondent authority that the name of the petitioner be
mutated in the revenue record in terms of the order. The
petitioner also paid Rs.360/- to the Talati-cum-Mantri on
28.09.1974 via receipt No.57, which was confirmed by sanad
dated 06.02.1975. The revenue authority also mutated the
entry No.1218 on 04.04.2000 in Village Form No.6, which was
certified on 04.04.2002, upon the petitioner’s application.
9.4 The petitioner herein thereafter, applied for conversion of
land from new tenure to old tenure, which was granted by the
Mamlatdar vide order dated 17.06.2002 bearing
No.JMN/VASHI/1718/2002 wherein, the petitioner made
payment of Rs.1800/-. The petitioner had not paid the land
revenue for the interregnum period and in view thereof, the
outstanding amount of land revenue is also paid by the
Page 9 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jun 01 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 01 14:33:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/15768/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
petitioner.
9.5 The order passed by the Mamlatdar was further sent to
the Deputy Collector for grant of permission, who rejected the
same, which gave rise to filing of appeal by the petitioner
before the Collector, who also ordered to take the revenue
entry No.1218 into revision by order dated 21.03.2006.
10. At this stage, it is apposite to reproduce show cause
notice issued to the petitioner on 20.08.2004 in revision
No.LAND/REVISION/108(6)1/04/05, which reads thus: (true
translation)
“NO. LAND-REVISION-108(6)1/04/05
Collector Office, Rajkot
Date: 20/08/2004
Subject: Regarding taking into revision the Entry No. 1218
dated 04/04/2000, entered in the Record of Rights in Survey
No. 328 of village Vadali, Rajkot Taluka.
:: Show Cause Notice ::
It has been disclosed in the proposal received vide Letter No.
Prak-JMN-1-Ra.Ta.-Vashi-127/04, dated 19/01/2004 from the Deputy
Collector, Rajkot, that land admeasuring 10 Acres - 00 Gunthas of
Government Survey No. 328paiki of village Vadali, Rajkot Taluka, was
granted in Santhani (on rent) to Mr. Brijgopal Premraj. This land was
allotted for the purpose of personal cultivation vide Santhani Order No.
Land-Kacheri-Vashi-3154 dated 29/08/1974, in accordance with the
Government's Revenue Department Santhani Resolution dated
01/07/1960.
Despite there being no record of having continuously cultivated
the land personally and having obtained crop yield as per the
conditions, and no entry having been caused to be mutated in the
revenue records for 26 years and despite there being no record of the
Page 10 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jun 01 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 01 14:33:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/15768/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
payment of land revenue or the compliance of any other conditions,
suddenly after 26 years, upon preferring an application on 04/04/2000
in the capacity of the Power of Attorney Holder of Brijgopal Premraj to
make an entry in the Record of Rights, the Talati-cum-Mantri, after so
many years, suddenly mutated Entry No. 1218 in the Record of Rights
and the said entry, without verifying any legal details and it was
suddenly certified by the Mamlatdar, Rajkot Taluka, on 12/05/2000, on
the basis of the application of the Power of Attorney Holder, subject to
the condition of paying the unpaid land revenue.
The Deputy Collector, Rajkot, in his report dated 04/03/2004,
has further disclosed the details that, regarding the Santhani land for
which Entry No. 1218 dated 04/04/2000 and on 12/05/2000 has been
mutated in the records of the Record of Rights, citing reasons that the
said land has been continuously cultivated for 15 years, the Mamlatdar,
Rajkot Taluka, in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution No.
NARAJ-1081-3152-J of Revenue Department of Government, dated
22/03/1996, granted approval to convert this land into Old Tenure vide
his letter No. JMN-Vashi-1400/02 dated 21/05/2002, and having also
passed a formal order dated 17/06/2002, finding the additional
proceedings conducted for this land to be contrary to the rules, the
said decision of the Mamlatdar, Rajkot Taluka, has been rejected vide
his order No. Prak-JMN-1-Ra.Ta.-690(2)/04 dated 04/03/2004.
Also in the said proceedings, wherein Entry No. 1218 dtd.
04/04/2000 (12/05/2000) was mutated in the Record of Rights was
certified by the Mamlatdar, Rajkot Taluka which was contrary to the
rules are illegal. Due to which a proposal was made to take this matter
into revision and upon receiving the proposal vide Revenue Branch's
Letter No. JMN-1-Ra.Ta.-123/02, dated 25/03/2004 along with
instructions to initiate proceedings to take this entry into revision,
hence the present case has been instituted.
Upon perusing the received papers, proposal and documents
received from the Deputy Collector, Rajkot, the Talati-cum-Mantri had
entered mutated Entry No. 1218 dated 04/04/2000 in the Record of
Rights after 26 years solely on the basis of the application dated
04/04/2000 of the Power of Attorney Holder of Brijgopal Premraj, by
citing the reference of the Santhani order dated 29/08/1974, which was
certified by the Mamlatdar on 12/05/2000 by taking the decision
which was contrary to the rules.
To know the lawful reasons as to why the said decision should
not be taken in revision and cancelled in connection with the
irregularity and illegality under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land
Revenue Rules for the following reasons, and by giving you an
opportunity to produce evidence in the interest of justice, this Show
Cause Notice is issued and served upon you.
Reasons:-
(1) Looking at the proposal received from the Deputy Collector,
Rajkot, land out of Government wasteland Survey No. 328 of Vadali
village, admeasuring Acre 10-00 Guntha, was granted by Santhani to
Page 11 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jun 01 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 01 14:33:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/15768/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
Sainik Havaldar - Brijgopal Premdas under new, impartible, non-
transferable, and resitricted tenure. The grant was subject to
conditions that the land to be used for self-cultivation, cannot be
mortgaged, gifted, or sold without permission, and that cultivation
must commence within two years of allotment without keeping the
land fallow except for natural reasons. According to the conditions of
the approval order, land revenue must be paid regularly every year.
There is a condition to carry out measurement at expenses of one own
within the stipulated period. As per Section 60 of the Land Revenue
Code and the approval order of Deputy Collector, a condition was kept
to enter and cultivate this government land only after obtaining prior
permission from the Mamlatdar. An additional condition in the order
required an undertaking that a married family must submit a certificate
of family planning after having three children; for a beneficiary already
having three or more children, the possession of land would be handed
over only after they undergo a family planning operation and submit
the certificate.
Based on an application dated 04-04-2000 by Mr. Mahesh, the
Power of Attorney holder for Brijgopal Premraj, the Mamlatdar, Rajkot
Taluka has entered and certified the mutation in the Record of Rights.
However, in the proposal of Deputy Collector it was revealed that
during this period of 26-years, it was not verified by the Mamlatdar,
Rajkot that whether the above conditions were followed or not, whether
the claimed possession is legal, or whether permission to enter
government land under Section 60 of the Land Revenue Code was
obtained or not.
Thus, this entry which have has been entered (by Mamlatdar)
suddenly in the Record of Rights after 26 years appears to have been
certified at a premature stage, without following due procedure and
involving irregularities; hence, it is fit to take into Revision.
(2) Looking to the documents produced, a 30-day statutory notice
under Section 135-D of the Land Revenue Code must be served to all
interested parties before certifying an entry in the Record of Rights. In
this case, such notice was not served to the interested party Brijgopal
Premraj or his Power of attorney holder Mr.Mahesh P. Bengali.
Guidance was not sought from the Deputy Collector, Rajkot, as to
whether any steps were taken regarding breach of conditions during
these 26 years. Details were not obtained from the Deputy Collector
regarding whether the santhani order for this land was cancelled during
these 26 years. Under these circumstances, the procedure followed by
the Mamlatdar, Rajkot Taluka, in certifying this Entry No. 1218 dated
12-05-2000 after 26 years is at a premature stage and against the
rules; therefore, it is fit for Revision.
(3) Looking at the papers received from the Deputy Collector, the
landholder of this land granted in Santhni, Brijgopal Premraj, has shown
his address at House No. 6-A, Street No. 2, Virendranagar, New Delhi-
58. Furthermore, the signature on the Rojkaam regarding the handing
over of possession dated 03-10-1974 is that of the power of attorney
holder M.P. Bengali. There is the signature of power of attorney Mahesh
P. Bengali in the affirmation given at that time and also the application
Page 12 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jun 01 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 01 14:33:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/15768/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
for making entry dated 04-04-2000 submitted by him. Thus, while the
government land was granted in Santhni for self-cultivation, it is has
not been gone through as to what evidence the Mamlatdar has verified
to prove that the land was self-cultivated. It was also not verified that
land revenue has not been paid for 26 years. In this manner, while
entering Record of Rights Entry No. 1218, without verifying the reasons
for self-cultivation and fulfillment of conditions, this entry made after
26 years is without verification of details, entered at a premature
stage, and against the rules; hence, it is fit for Revision.
For the reasons stated above, regarding why the Mamlatdar’s
decision to certify Entry No. 1218 which was entered on 04-04-2000,
certified on 12-05-2000 should not be taken into Revision under
Gujarat Land Revenue Rules-108(6) and cancelled, a hearing date has
been fixed at this office on 27-09-2004 at 11:00 hours for you to
present any written or oral submissions. If you fail to remain present at
the said date and time, it will be assumed that you have no
submissions to make, and a decision will be taken based on the merits
of the case.
Issued today on 18-08-2004 under my signature and seal of the
Court.
Signed: (M.V. Joshi)
Collector, Rajkot District.”
10.1 The petitioner herein replied to the aforesaid show cause
notice.
11. Considering the aforesaid show cause notice as it is, as
referred to hereinabove, it emerges that the onus was on the
respondent authority to mutate the name of the petitioner
pursuant to the allotment order dated 29.08.1974. In terms of
the said order, the Mamlatdar by order dated 17.06.2002
arrived at finding of fact that there is no breach of condition of
the allotment by petitioner herein and that, the petitioner has
regularly cultivated the land-in-question and the petitioner
Page 13 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jun 01 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 01 14:33:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/15768/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
herein is in possession of the land-in-question continuously,
since 15 years. Upon payment of premium, the land came to
be considered for change of use from new tenure to old tenure
land on certain conditions. Admittedly, as referred to
hereinabove, the land revenue is duly paid by the petitioner.
12. In light of the aforesaid, in absence of any breach of
condition on the record that the petitioner herein has not
cultivated the land-in-question and the competent authorities
having not inquired further post-facto , whether the petitioner
was cultivating the land or not and as to how the petitioner
herein is in possession of the land-in-question, passed the
impugned order cancelling the entry no.1218 on the ground of
breach of condition, in the opinion of this Court, is in excess of
the show cause notice that was issued to the petitioner herein.
12.1 Further, the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar,
mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue record, is
such that the petitioner’s order of allotment is still in-tact. In
view thereof also, once the order of allotment is in-tact and the
entry of allotment, which is mutated on 04.04.2002, is such
that the same could not have been cancelled for breach of
conditions.
Page 14 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jun 01 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 01 14:33:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/15768/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
13. At this stage, it is also apposite to refer to Section 2(11)
of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951, which provides that
a member of armed forces, shall be deemed to cultivate the
land personally if it is cultivated by the servants or hired labour
of such person.
“(11) “cultivate personally" or any cognate expression means to
cultivate on one's own account:-
(a) by ones own labour,
(b) by the labour of any member of ones family, or
(c) by servants on wages payable in cash or in kind but not in a
share of the crops or by hired labour, under ones personal
supervision or the personal supervision of any member of ones
family.
Explanation. I. -An agriculturist who is a widow or a minor or is subject
to any physical or mental disability or who is in service as a member of
the Armed Forces Shall be deemed to cultivate the land personally if it
is cultivated by the servants or by hired labour of such person.
Explanation. II. - In the case of an undivided Hindu family, the land shall
be deemed to have been cultivated personally if it is cultivated by any
member of such family.”
14. In view thereof the aforesaid also, the possession of
Power of Attorney holder cannot be said to be a reason to
cancel the entry No.1218 posted in the revenue record. In
absence of any procedure undertaken by the respondent
authorities applying their mind independently, without any
evidence, the findings of fact arrived at by the Mamlatdar by
order dated 17.06.2002 are such that the same could not have
been interfered with.
Page 15 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jun 01 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 01 14:33:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/15768/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
15. For the reasons, as referred to hereinabove, in exercise
of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
impugned order passed by Collector, Rajkot, in Revision
No.LAND/REVISION/108(6)1/04/05, dated 21.03.2006 and the
order passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department in
Revision Application No.MVV/JMN/RJT/03/2006, dated
26.12.2013, are quashed and set aside.
16. The present petition is allowed, accordingly. Rule is made
absolute.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
NEHA
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jun 01 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 01 14:33:24 IST 2026