Following settlement, the Court quashed the impugned revenue orders and disposed of the petition as withdrawn.

The petitioners invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging: (i) the Deputy Collector’s order dated 3 June 2004 in RTS Appeal No. 29/2003-04; (ii) the Collector, Rajkot’s order dated 23 April 2007 in RTS Revision No. 30/2003-04; and (iii) the Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals)’s order dated 17 November 2007 in RTS Revision No. MVV/HKP/RJT/6/07.

They also sought restoration of revenue entries Nos. 5835 to 5849.

During the proceedings, the parties relied on a joint affidavit recording settlement.

Regular Civil Suit No. 52 of 2024 had been withdrawn on 11 September 2025 pursuant to that settlement, and a declaration dated 21 May 2025, registered at Serial No. 6531, confirmed the sale transactions in favour of the petitioners and subsequent purchasers.

The petitioners consequently sought permission to withdraw the petition and requested quashing of the impugned orders.

The private respondents consented to the proposed disposal and quashing, while the State opposed interference with the SSRD order.

1. Whether, in view of the settlement between the parties, the petition could be disposed of as withdrawn.

2. Whether the three impugned revenue orders dated 3 June 2004, 23 April 2007 and 17 November 2007 ought to be quashed and set aside in light of the settlement, joint affidavit and registered declaration.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to consider the challenge to the revenue authorities’ orders.

The Court applied the procedural principle that a writ petition may be disposed of as withdrawn when the petitioner seeks withdrawal, particularly where the affected private parties acknowledge and consent to the settlement.

It further acted on the settlement recorded through the joint affidavit and the registered declaration confirming the relevant sale transactions.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was relied upon in the judgment to determine the underlying title or revenue-entry dispute.

The Court noted that the underlying civil dispute had been settled, that the related civil suit had consequently been withdrawn, and that the sale transactions had been confirmed through a registered declaration.

The joint affidavit was acknowledged by the relevant private respondents, who expressly stated that they had no objection to disposal of the petition as withdrawn and to quashing of the impugned orders.

Although the State maintained that the SSRD order was proper, the Court accepted the parties’ settlement and the private respondents’ consent as sufficient grounds to dispose of the writ proceedings and annul the challenged revenue orders.

Nevertheless, the Court expressly quashed and set aside the Deputy Collector’s order dated 3 June 2004, the Collector, Rajkot’s order dated 23 April 2007, and the Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals)’s order dated 17 November 2007.

The judgment does not separately record an operative direction restoring revenue entries Nos. 5835 to 5849.