Administrative Inaction and Territorial Changes Cannot Extinguish Vested Statutory Rights for Land Regularization

The petitioners are in possession of agricultural and adjacent "Wada" land (City Survey No. 349) in Moje Odhav, Ahmedabad.

In 1970, the petitioners’ father applied for regularization of the Wada land under the 22.06.1968 Government Resolution.

The District Collector rejected the application twice (1970 and 1998) on the ground that the property was not in the Wada Register.

The Special Secretary (Revenue Department) (SSRD) twice remanded the matter, specifically finding in the first instance (1971) that relevant entries did exist in the Wada Register.

The Collector rejected the application a third time in 2013, claiming the land now falls within Municipal Corporation limits.

This order was challenged in the High Court, which remanded it in 2014, yet the Collector passed the impugned order on 05.05.2016 reiterating the same jurisdictional grounds without considering the merits.

Whether the District Collector was justified in rejecting the regularization application solely on the ground that the land shifted into the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation during the pendency of the proceedings.

Whether the administrative delay of over 45 years by the revenue authorities can be used to defeat the rights of the petitioners.

The court applied the "Wada Sahita Rules and Regulations" and the Government Resolution dated 22.06.1968, which govern the regularization of Wada lands.

Once a matter is remanded by a superior authority with specific directions, the subordinate authority is duty-bound to decide the case within a reasonable time and follow those findings.

A party cannot be penalized for the "act of the court" or administrative inaction (Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit logic) regarding the change in territorial limits during a pendency caused by the state.

The court observed that the revenue authorities adopted a "callous and indifferent approach" by ignoring the SSRD’s 1971 finding that the petitioners' name was indeed in the Wada Register.

The court noted an unexplained delay of 27 years (1971–1998) by the Collector's office.

It reasoned that the petitioners cannot be faulted for the property falling into Municipal limits because this transition occurred only due to the State’s extreme delay in adjudicating a 1970 application.

The Collector failed to independently examine documents or follow the 2014 High Court directions, instead passing a "mechanical" order.

The court emphasized that the obligation to revive and conclude remanded proceedings rests on the authority, not the citizen.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the District Collector’s order dated 05.05.2016.

The respondent authorities were directed to give effect to the Wada Register entries and decide the occupancy price for the land within two months.

Rule was made absolute.