Gujarat High Court
Navinchandra Prataprai Ramaiya vs Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue ... on 11 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6287/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6287 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NAVINCHANDRA PRATAPRAI RAMAIYA & ORS.
Versus
SPECIAL SECRETARY (APPEALS) REVENUE DEPRATMENT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,2,2.1,3,3.1,3.2,3.3,4
MS SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 5.1,6
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 5
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4
UNSERVED WANT OF TIM for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 11/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present petition, petitioners have sought for the following main relief:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.02.2017 dispatched on 01.03.2017 passed by the respondent no.1 in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/VDD/230/12 as well as order dated: 30.10.2012 passed by Ld. District Collector, Vadodara as well as order Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Feb 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:33:37 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6287/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined dated 21.04.2011 passed by Ld. Dy. Collector, Dabhoi as well as order dated 09.05.2009 passed by Ld. Mamlatdar, Vaghodiya and further be pleased to direct the Ld. Mamlatdar, Vaghodiya to certify the entry No.4282, 4283 and 4284 mutated in the revenue records pursuant to registered sale deed in favour of the present petitioners;"
2. The facts of the case of the petitioners can be summarized in nutshell as under:
2.1. That the land bearing Survey No.115 paiki 2 of village Gajadhara, Taluka Vaghodiya, District Vadodara has been converted into NA by the Taluka Development Officer by passing an order dated 14.07.1981. Thereafter, the said land has been sub-
divided into approximately 150 plots. The petitioners herein have purchased three plots bearing plot Nos. 1, 2 and 4 from the vendors by executing registered sale deed in the year 1982. Thereafter, the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) had taken the order of the TDO granting NA permission into suo motu revision while exercising the powers under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and cancelled the NA permission granted by the TDO, by passing an order dated 29.03.1988. Being aggrieved by the said decision, writ petitions being Special Civil Application No.3886 of 1990 and allied matters came to be preferred before this Court. The said petitions came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.03.1996 and order of the TDO granting NA Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Feb 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:33:37 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6287/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined permission has been restored.
2.2. In view of execution of registered sale deed, mutation entry Nos. 4282, 4283 and 4284 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 09.05.2009. However, the Mamlatdar concerned has passed an order rejecting those entries on the ground of pendency of one suit being Civil Suit No.172 of 2008 before the competent Civil Court pertaining to the subject property. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Vadodara. However, the Deputy Collector, Vadodara rejected the said appeal vide order dated 21.02.2011 mainly on the ground that the order of NA passed by the TDO has been quashed and set aside by the learned SSRD and civil suit is pending before the competent Civil Court.
2.3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, petitioners herein have preferred revision before the Collector, Vadodara. The Collector has partly allowed the said revision by quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the Mamlatdar as well as Deputy Collector and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Collector for fresh consideration vide order dated 30.10.2012. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said decision, petitioners herein have preferred revision before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals).
Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Feb 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:33:37 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6287/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined 2.4. Thereafter, vide order dated 08.07.2016, learned SSRD has rejected the application seeking stay and therefore petitioners herein have preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.17910 of 2016 before this Court, which came to be disposed of with a direction to the learned SSRD to decide the revision application finally as expeditiously as possible.
2.5. Thereafter, the learned SSRD took up the matter for final disposal and vide order dated 22.02.2017, rejected the said revision application filed by the petitioners. Thus, by way of preferring present petition, petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the concerned revenue authorities.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit for the petitioners and learned AGP Ms. Surbhi Bhati for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit submits that after the land in question is converted into NA, the petitioners herein have purchased plot Nos. 1, 2 and 4 from the original vendors. He submits that pursuant to the execution of registered sale deed, entry Nos. 4282, 4283 and 4284 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 09.05.2009. However, the said entries have been cancelled by the Mamlatdar concerned on the ground that one civil suit pertaining to the subject property is pending before the competent Civil Court.
Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Feb 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:33:37 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6287/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners herein have preferred an appeal/revision before the Deputy Collector, Dabhoi. The said proceedings have been rejected by the Deputy Collector mainly on two grounds; firstly, the entry regarding cancellation of NA permission by the learned SSRD has been certified and no evidence as regards challenging the said decision has been produced on record and therefore NA permission has been cancelled and secondly one suit being Regular Civil Suit No.172 of 2008 is pending before the competent Civil Court for the subject land. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit submits that the said reasons given by the Deputy Collector are illegal, unjust and and against the record and before arriving at the said conclusion, learned Deputy Collector has not verified the record in true perspective. He submits that the order granting NA permission passed by the TDO has been restored by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the concerned revenue authorities have not challenged the said order by way of preferring an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. Thus, the said order restoring the order of TDO has attained finality. He further submits that before arriving at the conclusion, the Deputy Collector has lost sight to this important aspect of the matter. He further submits that another ground on which the appeal/revision of the petitioners has been rejected by the Deputy Collector is pendency of one civil suit. However, the said suit pertains to another Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Feb 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:33:37 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6287/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined parcel of land and it has nothing to do with the plots in question of the petitioners. The parties to the said suit are also different. Thus, without application of mind, the Deputy Collector has passed the order.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit further submits that even the Collector has also considered the aforesaid aspects and jumped to the conclusion that the suit, a reference of which is made in the order of the Deputy Collector as well as in the revenue record, is filed for altogether a different parcel of land and the parties to the said suit are also different and therefore it would not come in the way of the petitioners. However, despite the said observations, the Collector has remanded the matter back to the Deputy Collector for deciding it afresh. The said view taken by the Collector is erroneous one. He further submits that all the aforesaid facts have also been brought to the notice of the learned SSRD, despite that, the learned SSRD has rejected the revision application filed by the present petitioners. Thus, the view adopted by the Collector as well as SSRD is not legal and valid one and based upon the sound principle of law and therefore the impugned orders passed by the authorities concerned are required to be quashed and set aside and the Mamlatdar concerned may be directed to mutate and certify the entries in question in the revenue record pursuant to the registered sale deed executed by and Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Feb 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:33:37 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6287/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined between the petitioners and original vendors.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit has tendered a copy of the order dated 27.07.2021 passed below Exh.1 in Regular Civil Suit No.172 of 2008 by the 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara and submitted that the learned Court concerned has dismissed the said suit for non-payment of court fees as well as non-presence of the plaintiffs during the proceedings of the suit. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit for the petitioners submits that in view of the aforesaid overall factual aspects of the matter, petition may be allowed and Mamlatdar concerned may be directed to certify the entries in question.
7. On the other hand, learned AGP Ms. Bhati has objected present petition and submitted that while remanding the matter back to the Deputy Collector for deciding it afresh, the Collector has not committed any error of law and/or facts. She further submits that same way, no error of facts and/or law could be said to have been committed by the learned SSRD while confirming the order passed by the Collector, which warrants any interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, the authorities concerned have rightly passed the impugned orders. However, she has fairly conceded that the entries in question have not been certified and came to be rejected solely on the ground that one civil suit for the subject land is pending before the competent Civil Court. However, the parties to the Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Feb 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:33:37 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6287/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined said suit is altogether different and for altogether different parcel of land and the said suit is also dismissed by the competent Civil Court. She has also fairly admitted that the NA permission granted by the TDO and cancelled by the SSRD has already been restored by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and therefore both the reasons assigned by the Deputy Collector for dismissing the appeal/revision of the petitioners have no legs to stand. She, therefore, submitted that appropriate order may be passed.
8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having considered the materials placed on record, it appears that land bearing Survey No.115 paiki 2 of village Gajadhara, Taluka Vaghodiya, District Vadodara has been converted into NA by the Taluka Development Officer concerned. Thereafter, the said land has been sub-divided into approximately 150 plots, out of which, petitioners herein have purchased three plots by executing sale deed and paying full amount of consideration to the vendors. Thereafter, the SSRD has taken the said order of the TDO into suo motu revision and ultimately cancelled the NA permission. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, number of plot holders have preferred petitions before this Court. The said petitions came to be allowed by this Court and order of the TDO granting NA permission has been restored. Thereafter, mutation entry Nos. 4282, 4283 and 4284 came to be mutated in the revenue record on Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Feb 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:33:37 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6287/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined 09.05.2009 on the basis of execution of registered sale deed by and between the petitioners and original vendors. However, at the time of certification of those entries, Mamlatdar concerned has rejected those entries on the ground of pendency of one civil suit for the subject land before the competent Civil Court. Being aggrieved by the said decision, petitioners herein have preferred appeal/revision before the Deputy Collector, however, the said proceedings came to be rejected on two grounds; firstly, the permission of NA permission granted by the TDO has been cancelled by the SSRD and secondly, one suit for the subject land is pending before the competent Civil Court. Being aggrieved by the said decision, petitioners herein have preferred revision before the Collector. The Collector partly allowed the said revision and quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Mamlatdar as well as Deputy Collector and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Collector, Savli to decide the issue afresh. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said decision, petitioners preferred revision application before the SSRD, which also came to be rejected by the SSRD upholding the order of the Collector. Hence, petitioners have preferred present petition.
9. Perusal of the order passed by the Collector, it reveals that though the Collector has observed that the suit, a reference of which is made in the order of the Deputy Collector as well as in the revenue Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Feb 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:33:37 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6287/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined record, is filed for altogether a different parcel of land and the parties to the said suit are also different as well as the order of the TDO granting NA permission, which was quashed by the SSRD, has been restored by this Court, only with a view to verify the veracity of those aspects, the matter has been remanded back to the Deputy Collector. The said order of the Collector has been upheld by the learned SSRD.
10. It is found out from the record that the order of the SSRD, whereby, the SSRD has quashed the order of the TDO granting NA permission for the subject land, has been challenged before this Court and this Court has quashed the said order of SSRD and restored the order of the TDO. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the concerned revenue authority i.e. the Deputy Collector has not verified the record before passing the order, whereby, he has rejected the revision/appeal of the petitioners. The Collector as well as SSRD have also not considered the said important aspect before passing the impugned orders. Now, so far as another ground i.e. pendency of Civil Suit No.172 of 2008 before the competent Civil Court is concerned, it transpires that the said suit is filed by altogether a different person for another parcel of land and it has nothing to do with the plots of the present petitioners. Thus, both the grounds on which the application of the petitioners for certification of the entries has been rejected by the revenue authorities have no legs to stand.
Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Feb 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:33:37 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6287/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, petition stands allowed. The orders impugned passed by the revenue authorities concerned are hereby quashed and set aside. The Mamlatdar concerned is directed to take appropriate steps for certification of entry Nos.4282, 4283 and 4284 mutated in the revenue records pursuant to registered sale deed in favour of the present petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rule is made absolute.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) LAVKUMAR J JANI Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Feb 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:33:37 IST 2026