Gujarat High Court
Devenbhai Mafatlal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 1 April, 2026
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14975/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14975 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14976 of 2025
==============================================================
DEVENBHAI MAFATLAL PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==============================================================
Appearance:
DR. SHAILESH R. PATEL(6044) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
VIRAL K SHAH(5210) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No.
18,19,20,21,22,23,24
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR APURVA VAKIL, SR COUNSEL with MR ARJUN M JOSHI(11247)
for the Respondent(s) No. 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,5,6,7,8,9
MR MEHUL SHAH, SR COUNSEL with MR JENIL M SHAH for the
Respondent(s) No. 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,5,6,7,8,9
MR MANAN A SHAH(5412) for the Respondent(s) No. 17
NIDHI MANAN SHAH(9033) for the Respondent(s) No. 17
==============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 01/04/2026
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Manan Shah, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent no. 17, Mr. Apurva Vakil, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Arjun Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent nos. 5 to 9 and 10 to 16 in Special Civil Application No. 14975 of 2025 and Mr. Mehul Shah, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Jenil M. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:52:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14975/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined nos. 5 to 9 and 10 to 16 in Special Civil Application No. 14976 of 2025 and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.
2. The captioned petitions arise out of identical facts, in view thereof, with the consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties, Special Civil Application No. 14975 of 2025 is treated as lead matter.
3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the respondent no. 1 - SSRD, Sola, Ahmedabad in MVV/HKP/ST/124 of 2021 duly produced at Annexure-A to the petition, wherein, by the said order, the SSRD quashed and set aside the order passed by the Collector dated 05.01.2021 passed in RTS/Appeal Application/ Registration No. 306 of 2020 and the matter is remanded to the Collector to decide afresh taking into consideration the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court also taking into consideration the findings by the competent Civil Court upon granting opportunity of hearing to the respective parties to take the decision.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order as referred to herein-above has prayed for the following reliefs:
"10. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:52:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14975/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined petitioner(s), therefore, pray(s) that: A) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17/10/2025 passed in MVV/HKP/ST/124/2021, by the respondent no. 1 ANNEXURE A. (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the order impugned dated 17/10/2025 at ANNEXURE A. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant exparte ad interim relief in terms of para 10 (B).
(D) Any other and further relief/s deem fit, just and proper may kindly be granted by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."
5. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus:
5.1. The land bearing Survey No. 63 of Village Gaviyar Ta. Majura, Dist. Surat (for short, "the subject land"), was originally owned by Limbabhai Nanabhai as reflected in the revenue records of 1951-52.
The subject land appears to have been sold by Limbabhai to Lalubhai Chitabhai by way of a registered sale deed the same being reflected in the revenue records as Mutation Entry No. 358 dated 19.09.1964. 5.2. Lalubhai appears to have sold the land in question to Khushal Nathabhai and Bhulabhai Nathabhai as reflected in Mutation Entry Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:52:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14975/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined No. 487 dated 23/04/1966. Upon the demise of Khushalbhai and Bhulabhai, the subject land was inherited by Ashok Khushalbhai and others whose name stood reflected in the land records as the inheritor of the land in question. Amongst the inheritors of the land in question, names of all other heirs stood deleted and Rameshbhai Khushalbhai and Mahendrabhai Khushalbhai were the only two inheritors whose name continued to be reflected as the owners of the land in question by Mutation Entry No. 1214. Rameshbhai upon his demise was survived by Purnimaben whose name came to be reflected as the owner of the subject land. Mahendrabhai Khushalbhai and Purnima ben later sold the subject land vide registered Sale Deed No. 282 dated 31.05.2013. A copy of the index is produced at Annexure-G to the petition.
5.3. The said registered sale deed was sought to be reflected vide Entry No. 5488 and the certification was contested by the private respondents before the Respondent No. 4 - Mamlatdar, who ordered for the cancellation of the entry in question vide order 05.06.2020. The said order passed by the Respondent No. 4 came to be challenged before the Respondent No. 3 by the Private respondents, who uphold the order of Respondent No. 4. The order of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, came to be challenged before respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 set aside the orders of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and directed certification of the entry in question.
Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:52:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14975/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined
5.4. The order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 01.10.2020 came to be challenged by the petitioners herein before the Collector - respondent no. 2 wherein by order dated 05.01.2021 (Annexure-B), allowed the revision application filed by the petitioners herein directing the Mamlatdar to mutate the Entry No. 5488 dated 04.01.2020 in the revenue record. The aforesaid was directed to be subject to the final outcome to the Civil proceedings and proceedings under the Tenancy Act pending between the parties. 5.5. In view thereof, the private respondents herein challenged the said order before the SSRD wherein the revision was registered as MVV/HKP/ST/124 of 2021 wherein by the impugned order dated 17.10.2025, the SSRD quashed and set aside the order passed by the Collector, Surat dated 05.01.2021 and remanded the matter to Collector. The aforesaid has given rise to the filing of the present petition.
6. Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned advocate by way of an additional affidavit filed in Special Civil Application No. 14976 of 2025, submits that as provided under Section 135C of the Land Revenue Code, as such by the order passed by the Collector dated 05.01.2021, it is directed that the Mutation Entry No. 5488 be certified in the revenue record and the same is subject to the final outcome of the civil proceedings and the tenancy proceedings. It is submitted that the said Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:52:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14975/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined order as such is just and proper. Further, the litigation under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, pressed into service by the respondents does not set aside the registered sale deed of the petitioners. Having taken note of that, there is no prayer made by the private respondents to set aside the registered sale deed in any of the litigation. None of the Courts where the proceedings are pending have granted any stay against the sale or the registered sale deed is held to be null and void. It is submitted that the respondents herein are praying to the Court for something indirectly which cannot be done directly.
6.1. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that as such there is no justification for remand also considering the fact that while passing the order dated 05.01.2021, the Collector has taken into consideration the litigations pending before Hon'ble the High Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court and in view thereof, there are no justifiable reasons assigned by the SSRD for order of remand. It is also submitted that if the order passed by the SSRD is permitted to be implemented, the land would vest to the predecessor in title and the same would grant premium to such person who has pocketed the sale consideration. The respondent no. 5 was aware about the sale transaction since long but has chosen to be a fence sitter, and upon noticing an order passed which was favourable to the petitioner chose to file a revision on grounds untenable under the Gujarat Land Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:52:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14975/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined Revenue Code, 1879. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the SSRD is required to be quashed and set aside.
7. Mr. Mehul Shah, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Apurva Vakil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents in both the petitions support the order passed by the SSRD and submit that no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the SSRD wherein, the order of remand having directed the Collector to take into consideration the relevant aspects as referred to in findings in paragraph no. 5 of the order and having arrived at a conclusion wherein, the said aspects as referred to by the SSRD are as such not taken into consideration while passing the order in RTS/Revision/Registration No. 307 of 2020 dated 05.01.2021 passed by the Collector. It is submitted that though there was an order of status quo in Special Civil Application No. 2452 of 2019 wherein, interim relief by Sessions Court is granted in terms of paragraph 9B by order dated 07.02.2019, the Collector has not taken into consideration two important facts while passing the impugned order. First, in the case No. 16 of 2011 filed by the applicant, i.e., Dipakbhai Lakhubhai Patel before the Executive Magistrate regarding the disputed land, the respondent could not prove his possession over the land in question. Moreover, in that regard, the Criminal Revision Application No. 235/2001 in the Court of the 13 th Additional District Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:52:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14975/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined and Sessions Judge, Surat. Vide the order dated 30.08.2018, the Criminal Revision Application preferred by the respondent herein, i.e., Mahendrabhai Khushalbhai came to be rejected and the order of the Additional Executive Magistrate, Surat was upheld, against which the Special Criminal Appeal No. 8394 of 2018 was preferred by Mahendrabhai Khushalbhai before Hon'ble the High Court wherein by order dated 01.10.2018, stayed execution of the order dated 24.06.2011 of the Additional Executive Magistrate, Surat and the order dated 30.08.2018 of the 13 th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat. Thereafter, the Hon'ble High Court finally disposed the case vide order dated 26.08.2022 and dismissed the petition preferred by Mahendrabhai Khushalbhai. Perusing the Judgment, the Hon'ble High Court has concluded that;
"The Petitioner No. 1 while praying for interim relief in Revision Application had undertaken before the Sessions Court that he shall maintain status quo in respect of the disputed land thereafter in breach of the aforesaid undertaking, sold away the land in favor of Respondent No.2 and also gave possession of the land in question to Petitioner No.2 and the aforesaid fact was suppressed by the revisional court, i.e., the Sessions Court."
Thus, the Hon'ble High Court held that though the Respondent No. 2
- Mahendra Khushalbhai Patel had undertaken before the Civil Court Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:52:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14975/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined that status quo would be maintained, he conveyed the land to the Respondent Devenbhai Patel on sell-purchase basis.
"The Hon'ble High Court drew a conclusion that, "the order dated 24.06.2011 passed in Court Case No. 16 of 2011 under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by Learned In-Charge Additional Executive Magistrate, Surat City is well reasoned order, which was supported by evidence and no fault can be found with it."
Thus, the Hon'ble High Court pronounced the Judgment dated 26.08.2022 considering the fact that the possession and enjoyment of land is vested in the applicant. Against the order, Mahendrabhai Khushalbhai preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No. 8262 - 8263 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is pending at present. Appreciating the submissions made by the parties, it does not appear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted any stay therein. It is submitted that the sale in favour of the present petitioner as such is results in violation of the order passed by the Courts from time to time.
7.1. Placing reliance on the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the SSRD, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the Collector was required to be quashed and set aside and the same is quashed and set aside wherein, the said order failed to take into consideration the facts which are recorded by the SSRD and the Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:52:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14975/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined same are required to be considered afresh.
7.2. To substantiate his submissions, Mr. Shah, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the decisions rendered in the case of Surjit Singh & Ors. Vs Harbans Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 135 as well as in the case of Thomson Press (India) Limited Versus Nanak Builders And Investors Private Limited reported in AIR 2013 SC 2389.
7.3. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, it is submitted that it is well settled position of law that any act in defiance of a restraint order if permitted to continue would defeat the ends of justice.
8. Mr. Manan Shah, learned advocate appearing for the predecessor in title submitted that the as such there is no bar in transferring property in question a subsequent purchasers, however, such transaction would be brought on record by way of lis pendens. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered in Thomson Press (Supra) more particularly, paragraph no. 52.
9. Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in rejoinder reiterated the contentions, however, fairly submitted that pending the present petition, a fresh notice is also issued by the Collector to the respective parties and that the petitioner would to make out a case before the competent authority whereby the Collector Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:52:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14975/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined by order dated 05.01.2021 directed the mutation of Entry No. 5488 dated 04.01.2020 in the revenue record subject to the out come to the proceedings pending before the Civil Court and under the Tenancy Act is quashed and set aside.
9.1. If the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the SSRD is permitted to be continued, the petitioners right would be adversely affected wherein the said entry being Entry No. 5488 which is mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the order passed by the Collector would stand cancelled. It is submitted that "status quo" qua the revenue entry is directed to be maintained till the Collector decides the remand in the interest of justice.
10. Having heard the learned advocates and considering the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the SSRD threadbare and upon perusal of the documents produced on record and in the opinion of this Court, it is apposite to refer to the findings arrived at by the Tribunal which read thus:
"5.9 While passing the impugned order, the Collector has not taken into consideration two important facts. First, the Respondent could not establish his possession over the land in question in Case No. 16/2011 preferred before the Executive Magistrate in connection with the land in dispute. Moreover, Special Criminal Appeal No. 8395/2018 instituted before the Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:52:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14975/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined Hon'ble High Court in the matter was pending and the injunction granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat was operational. Despite that the Collector had certified the entry.
Further, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal had issued the order to remand, the dispute as to declaring the applicant a tenant, to the Deputy Collector. On SCA No. 2452/2019 being filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat against the order, with regard to the prayer for a stay at para (9B) of the petition by the Petitioner that is the present Respondent, the Hon'ble High Court has passed the following order.
"pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to command the revenue authorities stay the execution and implementation of order impugned at Annexure-A."
Thus, the Petitioner that is the present Respondent had prayed for a stay on the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and in this regard, the Hon'ble High Court had granted an injunction vide the order dated 07/02/2019. The petition is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. 5.10 In view of all the facts concerning the land in question, it deems appropriate that the Collector may, after considering decisions of the various Courts, decide the Revision afresh. It is necessary that the Revision may be decided after production of the details as to the litigation pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court, injunctions granted therein and after giving opportunities to the parties for making representation. Moreover, various litigation have been instituted with regard to the land in question. When an injunction has been granted by the Hon'ble High Court and the case is pending before Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:52:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14975/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it seems appropriate that the latest details and directions, if any, are taken into consideration. Therefore, the following order is issued.
-:ORDER:-
The Revision Application No. MMV/HKP/ST/125/2021 of the applicant is partly granted. Order No. RTS/Appeal Application/Regi No. 307/2020 dated 05/01/2021 of the Collector, Surt is set aside. It is ordered that the case be remanded to the Collector, Surat for deciding the revision afresh as per the rules and after taking into consideration the details of the petition pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court, the Judgment of Civil Court and after giving opportunities to the parties to make representations."
11. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the dispute in question the SSRD while remanding the matter has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Collector dated 05.01.2021 admittedly rather than deciding the entire dispute on it own. The SSRD has thought it fit to remand the matter to the Collector to which this Court is not inclined to interfere, however, in the interest of justice, the parties are directed to maintain status quo qua the revenue records as on today, till the Collector decides the remand proceedings in accordance with law.
12. With the aforesaid directions, the present petitions are disposed of.Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:52:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14975/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined
13. In view of the order passed by this Court a Fresh Notice be issued to the respective parties in terms of the order passed by the SSRD.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) KUMKUM Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:52:44 IST 2026