Gujarat High Court
Kishorbhai Narottamdas Zalawadia vs State Of Gujarat on 25 March, 2026
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 342 of 2019
==============================================================
KISHORBHAI NAROTTAMDAS ZALAWADIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==============================================================
Appearance:
HIREN J TRIVEDI(8808) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.KRUTARTH K PANDYA(7092) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DHAVAL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 25/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Hiren J. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dhaval Trivedi, learned AGP appearing for the respondent - State authorities.
2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(28) In the premises aforesaid, the petitioners most humbly and respectfully pray that:
(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the respondent-SSRD in Revision Application No.MVV/BKP/RJT/4/2018 (annexed at Annexure) as well as the order passed by the respondent-District Collector dated 18.03.2018 (annexed at Annexure_ further be Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined pleased to allow the applications made and by the petitioner before learned respondent-Collector dated 03.03.2016 and 02.01.2017;
(B) During the Pendency and Final Disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further operation, execution and implementation of order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the respondent-SSRD in Revision Application No.MVV/BKP/RJT/4/2018 (annexed at Annexure) as well as the order passed by the respondent-District Collector dated 18.03.2018 (annexed at Annexure) and further be pleased to allow the applications made by the petitioner before learned respondent-Collector dated 03.03.2016 and 02.01.2017; (C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;"
3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein has invoked Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 - Special Secretary, Revenue Department in Revision Application No. MVV/BKP/RJT/4/2018 as well as the order dated 18.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3 - District Collector wherein, the petitioners application came to be rejected which was initially filed as Lokfariyad Swagat Karyakram initiated by the Government of Gujarat on 07.04.2015 which ultimately culminated into Lokfariyad Grievance I.D. No. 2017/4770 wherein, the petitioner herein by an application duly produced at page 62, the petitioner Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined requested to declare the land admeasuring 536.49 sq. mts. which is part and parcel of land situated at Revenue Survey No. 316, Taluka:
Upleta, District: Rajkot admeasuring 17805.92 sq. mts. or 4-16 Acre- Guntha to be available for residential purpose and the same be mutated in the khata number of the petitioner as his land was declined on the grounds not germane to the fact of the case. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent - Collector erred in holding that the request of the petitioner is barred by limitation and the land which was reserved for Development Road (herein after referred to as D.P. Road or proposed road) would stand vested as road even after the same was cancelled by the State Government under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for short, "the Act, 1976"). The respondent - Collector have assumed powers for breach of conditions under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, (for short, "the Code") for disposing the application of the petitioner herein and has usurped the jurisdiction. The aforesaid has given rise to the filing of the present petition.
4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus: 4.1. The principal dispute pertains to land situated at Revenue Survey No. 316, Taluka: Upledta District: Rajkot admeasuring 17805.92 sq.mts ог 4-16 Acre-Guntha, Taluka: Upleta, Dist:- Rajkot (for short, "the subject land"). The said land belonged to the father of Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined the petitioner and the same is reflected in the revenue records.
Thereafter, on 22.04.1970, Entry No. 7691 was mutated in revenue record pursuant to a family settlement arrangement. The common plot was never distributed and it always belonged to the father of the petitioner. The share of internal roads were divided and mutated against each individuals name by the Mamlatdar after taking approval of the Collector duly produced at "Annexure-A" to the petition. 4.2. Pursuant thereto the N.A permission was sought on such the subject land which was granted on 30.06.1972 and thereafter, the lay out plan on such land in question was granted by the then Collector vide order dated 01.01.1973 bearing No. Ν.Α bearing 92/71-73. Subsequently, revised plan was sanctioned by the Collector, upon application by the petitioner dated 23.11.1978 and which was put for consideration 29.12.1978, and was sanctioned on 04.02.1979 duly produced at "Annexure-B" to the petition. When the new layout plan was sanctioned a D.P road was shown to be passing from the land of petitioner and accordingly, some part of the petitioner's land was included in the D.P road and accordingly, the usable area of petitioner's land was this reduced as per the plan approved in the year 1979. The D.P road was recommended to be cancelled vide Item No. 3 in Resolution 67 passed by the Nagar Palika, Upleta dated 12.09.1990, pursuant to objections called by the State Government as provided under Section 16 the Act, 1976 duly produced at "Annexure-
Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined C" to the petition. 4.3. Thereafter the State Government vide notification dated
14.09.1995 issued by the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Gandhinagar cancelled the 18m D.P Road passing through Revenue Survey Nos. 316, 307/1 and 305/2 and others exercising power under Section 19(1) the Act, 1976. It is further stated that the said land reserved for D.P Road was released and was designated for 'Residential Use' under Section 12(2)(a) the Act, 1976. 4.4. The petitioner was unaware about such development as the petitioner is residing in Junagadh since last 40 years and accordingly unaware about the developments on the said subject land. The D.P road was shown to be passing through the revised plan sanctioned in the year 1978, which was subsequently cancelled in the year 1995 i.e., almost after 20 years. The petitioner made an application dated 08.01.2015 before Public Information Officer, enquiring about the status of D.P road passing through Survey No. 316 belonging to the father of the petitioner along with the notification through which the said D. P. Road was cancelled. The Public Information Officer vide its reply dated 23.01.2015 intimated the petitioner that D.P Road was cancelled vide notification dated 14.09.1995. The copy of the said notification dated was made available to the petitioner along with the resolution dated 12.09.1990 passed by Nagar Palika, Upleta. The Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined petitioner made an application dated 11.02.2015 to include the land which was reserved for D.P road passing through the land of the petitioner and which was subsequently cancelled, in the khata number of the petitioner and mutated and entry to the said effect. The petitioner again made an application dated 03.03.2015 to the Collector, Rajkot under Swagat Fariyad Nivaran scheme of Government of Gujarat, after drawing reference to the letter dated 23.01.2015 of Public Information Officer informing the petitioner that the D. P. road has been cancelled and it is also stated that petitioner has not received any compensation of the land acquired for the road purposes.
4.5. The petitioner again made an application before the Mamlatdar, Upleta, drawing reference to the earlier application dated 11.02.2015 seeking the same relief, wherein, by communication dated 01.04.2015 the Mamlatdar replied that the petitioner to apply after obtaining information as to how much land of the petitioner was included in the D.P. road and when it was included. The petitioner once again applied on 07.04.2015 before the Collector under the Swagat Fariyad Nivaran, raising largely three grievances and requesting to resolve the same, as under:
i. That the land which was included in the DP road and which was subsequently released and designated for residential uses in the year 1995, no information was in this regard was Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined provided to the petitioner;
ii. That while granting N.A permission in land in question 89-2-0 sq. yards was in industrial zone land which is now a residential zone and accordingly the said land be converted for residential land;
iii. That industrial zone land admeasuring the 89-2-0 sq. yards was reflected in village form 6 bit the same is not reflected in village form no. 8-A. 4.6. The Mamlatdar, Upleta vide communication dated 13.04.2015 informed the petitioner that since while approving the lay out plan vide order dated 01.01.1973, the area of land falling under D.P. road is already counted in the internal road shown in the lay out plan and no separate land is shown falling under D.P. Road and hence, such clarity can be ascertained only after measurement of the land. It is also stated that since the N.A. permission was granted by the Collector, Rajkot, the Mamlatdar cannot do anything. 4.7. The Collector vide his letter dated 15.04.2015 addressed to Chief Officer Nagar Palika, Upleta to ask all the complainant under the Swagat Fariyad Nivaran to be present on 23.04.2015. The petitioner remained present before the Chief Officer Nagar Palika, Upleta on 23.04.2015 with the relevant information. Thereafter on 23.04.2015 all the grievances of the petitioner were addressed by Chief Officer, Nagarpalika, Upleta and the petitioner was informed Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined that none of the request could be countenanced. To issue no. 1, it was stated that since no objection was taken by the petitioner to the revised Development Plan as per the notification dated 14.09.1995 of Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, wherein all the stakeholders were asked to submit any suggestions within two months from the date of publication, which was subsequently finalized by Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar on 02.02.1996 vide notification no. GH/V/23 OF 1996/DVP/-2491-2490/-L., the petitioner could not be informed accordingly. Since the land of the petitioner was not acquired there arises no question of paying any compensation to the petitioner. Qua issue no. 2 the petitioner was asked to make representation under Section 19 of the Act, 1976 before appropriate authority. For issue no. 3 it was resolved that updating village form no.8-A as per village form no.6 does not fall within the ambit of Nagarpalika.
4.8. The petitioner was informed by Chief Officer, Nagar Palika, Upleta by communication dated 28.04.2015 that the land shown as reserved for industrial use was converted to commercial purposes vide notification dated 15.09.2018 of Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. Thereafter vide application dated 03.03.2016 petitioner made a representation that as per his previous representation dated 07.04.2015 in Swagat Fariyad Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined Nivaran, wherein he was called on 23.04.2015 and District Development Officer heard his query in front of Chief Officer, Nagar Palika, Upleta that Chief Officer informed the petitioner to be present before Mamlatdar and Mamlatdar vide his letter dated 13.04.2015 stated he cannot interfere as N.A. permission granted by Collector, Rajkot, the petitioner got the land measured after paying necessary fees in the Officer of City Survey Superintendent Upleta, which came to be 620.76 sq. mts. and accordingly the said land be included in the khata number of the petitioner. The Collector vide letter dated 15.03.2016 asked the Mamlatdar to carry out necessary inspection of documents.
4.9. The petitioner once again made a representation dated 09.11.2016 before the Collector under the Swagat Fariyad Nivaran Program. Thereafter the Collector, Rajkot vide letter dated 15.11.2016 informed Mamlatdar Upleta and Mamlatdar N.A. Branch to inform the petitioner to remain present on 24.11.2016 which was complied by the Mamlatdar vide letter dated 09.11.2016. The petitioners application came to be disposed by Mamlatdar, Upledta by order dated 24.11.2016 wherein the questions raised by the petitioner were answered in negative. The Mamlatdar, Upleta, observed that vide Permission No. L.N.D.N.A 92/71-72 dated 01.01.1973 Ν.Α permission was granted along with a lay out plan wherein including plot, common plot and land for industrial purpose and internal road delineated Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined totaling 21296 sq. yards or 17804.92 sq. mts. That vide Entry No. 7691 family settlement was mutated wherein common road and internal plot was also divided and at Survey No. 2 plot and industrial road was shown in the favour of father of petitioner. It was also observed that 620.76 sq. mts. of road was indicated by the petitioner is part of internal road in the lay out plant and since no separate D.P. road is mentioned in the lay out plan, the road would be forming part of the internal road and is already mutated in the favour of father of petitioner. Since the entire piece of land along with D.P. road was distributed vide Entry No. 7691, same is already shown in the name of petitioner. The D.P. road is not separately mentioned in lay out plan that means it is already being shown part of internal road and accordingly, if this is shown separately a revised N.A. permission is required and accordingly, Mamlatdar has no role in the same. The Chief Officer, Nagarpalika shared copy of extant G.D.C.R page no. 14 to 16 vide his letter dated 06.12.2016.
4.10. The petitioner again made representation dated 02.01.2017 stating that out of 620.76 sq. mts. of land, 89.27 sq. mts. is industrial land (currently commercial) thus 536.49 sq. mts. land was included in D.P. road. It was stated since this road was cancelled it was not converted for residential use and is lying unused and there is imminent danger of encroachment on the said land. That out of total road land of 4473.41 sq. mts. D. P. road of 536.49 sq. mts. may be Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined deducted and may be declared as residential and be included in petitioner's khata number. The petitioner is not requesting for additional land. As per G.D.C.R of 1976 the layout plan was finalized and their was no stipulation of leaving 25% reserve land for road purpose whereas stipulation is width of road should be proportionate to length of the road which stipulation is followed in the layout plan approved. In the application, the petitioner also requested for provisions of G.D.C.R which warrants 25% of total land to be reserved for road purpose. Thereafter, the Collector vide letter 17.01.2017 wrote to Mamlatdar to look in to the grievances of the petitioner.
Thereafter the petitioner vide application dated 16.06.2017 again requested the Collector to dispose his application as per law. 4.11. Thereafter, vide representation dated 08.10.2017 the petitioner again wrote to Public Relationship Officer to take appropriate steps in relation to application made by the petitioner, response to which Section Officer (Public Relations) vide letter dated 20.11.2017 wrote to Hon'ble Chief Minister's Office to take application of petitioner in next Swagat Fariyad Nivaran program for consideration and marked a copy of such letter to Collector. On 06.02.2018, the Chief Officer, Nagarpalika wrote to the petitioner that since the proposed road was cancelled there is no requirement of any separate proceedings and the said land is considered as residential. The respondent - Collector vide letters dated 09.02.2018 and 17.02.2018 dated asked Mamlatdar, Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined Upleta to carry out proceedings and consider the representation of petitioner. It is stated that the Mamlatdar vide his order dated 22.07.2018 disposed of the application of petitioner in similar manner to the order dated 24.11.2016. The respondent-Collector vide his order dated 18.03.2016 disposed of the applications of the petitioner inter alia on other grounds starting the request of the petitioner is barred by limitation and that total area of the land in question was determined as per the layout plan during N.A. proceedings and only because D.P. road is cancelled the said road cannot be vested to the original khata number and it stands vested in the road. 4.12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Collector, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No. MVV/BKP/RJT/4/2018 before respondent - SSRD wherein, the petitioner again made written submission dated 06.08.2016 during the course of hearing before the SSRD. (annexure-T) That the Collector erred in holding that the subject land does not fall in the khata number of the petitioner. In response to the said observation the petitioner submitted the form 8-A wherein, it is submitted that the common plot, the industrial zone and the proposed road was never surrendered by the petitioner and the petitioner still pays the taxes. The adjacent plot situated at Revenue Survey No. 316 paiki admeasuring 3 Acre-39 a layout plan was sanctioned 03.06.2016, where in the residential construction has been allowed on the area of Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined land falling under the D.P road passing through such plot. Corollary being the land is falling under the D.P road now is converted into residential purposes. The respondent-SSRD vide order dated 30.08.2018 rejected the petitioners application. (annexure-v. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 30.08.2018 passed by the respondent - SSRD in Revision Application No. MVV/BKP/RJT/4/2018 as well as the order passed by the respondent-District Collector dated 18.03.2018 and the in actions of the authority to countenance the request of petitioner for including the land of D.P road in the khata no. of the petitioner and declaring the same as available for residential purposes, the petitioner herein has preferred the present petition.
5. Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent authority by notification dated 14.09.1995 issued by the Urban Development and Urban Hosing Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar dated 14.09.1995, that the proposed road was designated for residential purpose as per Section 12(2)(a) of the Act, 1976. That the proposed road after cancellation is still reflected road in land records and that even after pursuing the query to the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities declined to mutate the land which is not forming a part of the D. P. Road in the Khata of the petitioner which is an internal road which is of the ownership of the petitioner.
Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined
5.1. In the facts of the present case, there is a family settlement between the family members and there is no question of a registered sale deed as observed by the Collector. The authority suggested the petitioner to tender revised plan for the piece of land admeasuring 260.76 sq. mts. It is submitted that the petitioner only seeks that upon measurement having been undertaken by the petitioner herein to the DILR, the D. P. Road and the industrial plot admeasuring 620.76 which admeasures 536.49 sq. mts and 620.76 sq. mts. be mutated in the petitioners name Khata entry in accordance with law. It is submitted that the respondent authority erred in declining such request mainly on the ground of delay.
5.2. Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate submits that the prayer is innocuous wherein, the petitioner herein is the owner of the subject land and in view thereof, the aforesaid exercise be undertaken. Submissions by the State:
6. Mr. Trivedi, learned AGP relies on the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent authority duly produced at page 107 to the petition. It is submitted that the land bearing Survey No. 316 paiki admeasuring acre 4 guntha 16 of Village: Ubledta, Taluka: Upledta-2, vide Entry No. 375 in record of rights stood in the name of Narottam Ratansinh Zalavadiya, the petitioner's father. The subject land came to be Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined converted into N.A. upon certain conditions by order dated 13.06.1972. The terms of N.A. permission for residential use, building arrangement layout plan as also elevation and detailed building plan was asked to be submitted in 6 copies within 15 days of the order. On production thereof, Collector, Rajkot granted the same vide order dated 01.01.1973 in accordance with correction suggested by the surveyor. The copy of building arrangement layout plan is produced by the petitioner along-with the petition at page 36. As per the building arrangement layout plan total 29 plots were carved out leaving open land for internal roads as also for enjoyment of plot holders. The petitioner herein, upon a family arrangement having been arrived at between the family members plot nos. 1 to 3 and 4 to 8 for which entry no. 7715 and 7717 in record of rights came to be mutated, to Geetanjali Cooperative Housing Society Limited on 14.07.1979. The registered sale deeds entered with Geetanjali Co- operative Housing Society limited is also not produced on record by the petitioner.
6.1. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the sanctioned building arrangement layout plan for residential purpose, proposed road on left side of the plan goes from south to north whereas sanction layout plan in the order of N.A. shows towards plots and area thereof is not specifying any area for proposed road or either common usage of plot holders or it is proposed in the Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined development plan. The petitioner is not the owner of that proposed road either of the scheme or of the development plan. 6.2. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that in issue no. 3 resolution no. 67 by Nagarpalika, Upleta dated 12.09.1990 resolves that in development plan passing through Survey No. 316 has construction over the same and therefore, it is not possible to implement the proposed road if sanctioned, therefore, Nagarpalika, Upleta requested to drop the proposed the road from the development plan in Survey No. 316. Even if proposed road passing through Survey No. 316 in development plan is dropped it makes no difference as far as petitioner is concerned. Therefore, land admeasuring 620.76 Sq Mtrs claimed by the petitioner to be released for residential use is without basis. Petitioner filed various applications to different authorities for same purpose but ultimately on the report submitted by Mamlatdar, Upleta providing the factual details to the Collector vide order dated 17.03.2018 wherein application of the petitioner came to be rejected. It is submitted that the petitioner appears not to have challenged the communication, however, preferred appeal before the SSRD which came to be rejected by order dated 30.08.2018 confirming the order/communication 17.03.2018 of the Collector against which the present petition is filed. 6.3. Since proposal for proposed road is dropped and no land is Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined deducted of the owner of the plot for which N.A. permission is granted the question of passing any order as requested by the petitioner does not arise. It is submitted that the revised plan produced by the at page 96A is for grant of N.A. for residential purpose for different land comprising very Survey No. 316 paiki admeasuring A-3 G-39. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that in absence of any reduction, of any area, the question of mutation of the land admeasuring 620.76 sq. mts. does not arise. The present petition be dismissed.
7. Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate in rejoinder reiterates the contentions raised earlier and submits that in absence of the proposed D. P. Road, having been implemented, the remaining area of land as per the measurement undertaken by the DILR with respect to Survey No. 316 which was originally owned by the petitioner is such that the same is required to be mutated in the petitioners Khata.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 316 paiki, Taluka: Upleta, District: Rajkot admeasuring 17805.92 sq. mts. or 4-16 Acre-Guntha vide Entry No. 374 in the record of rights came to be mutated in the name of the petitioners father Narottam Ratansinh Zalavadiya. The said land was thereafter converted into N.A. on 13.06.1972 upon certain conditions. On production of the Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined plan before the Collector, Rajkot, the same is granted by order dated 01.01.1973 in accordance with the correction suggested by the surveyor.
9. As pointed out by Mr. Dhaval Trivedi, learned AGP wherein, the copy of the building arrangement plan is duly produced at page 36 carving out 29 plots leaving open land for internal roads as also for enjoyment of the plot holders. Upon a family arrangement arrived at between the family members, plot nos. 1 to 3 and 4 to 8 for which Entry Nos. 7715 and 7717 came to be mutated in the revenue record was thereafter sold by the petitioner to Geetanjali Cooperative Housing Society Limited on 14.07.1979 is also not in dispute. The petitioner herein, approached the respondent authority for mutation of the remaining parcel of land in the petitioners khata after a period of 40 years on the ground that the petitioner was not aware about the notification issued by the competent authority under the town planning act.
9.1. The petitioner's request came to be declined by the competent authorities mainly on the ground of delay of 40 years and also factual position of upon perusal of the plan duly produced at page no. 36 as also page no. 105 that even if the case of the petitioner is taken as it is the proposed D.P. Road never passed through the plots owned by the petitioner herein, the same passed through plot no. 26. The aforesaid Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined is not controverted by the petitioner. It can easily be inferred that in absence of any area as such the petitioner herein is not even the owner of the subject land having sold the same to Geetanjali Cooperative Housing Society Limited however, claims that the remaining parcel of land admeasuring 620.76 sq. mts. be mutated in his name also does not appeal to this Court.
9.2. In rejoinder, Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the plot No. 26 is a separate road. The road is not sold. It is settled position of law wherein it is held that the petitioner having sold the land in question to Geetanjali Cooperative Housing Society Limited as back in the year on 14.07.1979 as referred to herein-above. It is also the oral submission of the petitioner that the present petition is filed on behalf of legal heirs also however, said contention cannot be accepted in writ jurisdiction wherein the legal heirs are also not made party to the proceedings. Further, in view of the aforesaid, the petitioner herein having failed as to how the petitioner in has any legal right to claim such area of land in his Khata Number. 9.3. It is apposite to refer to the deal with the decision relied upon by the Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner rendered in the case of Vijayrajsinhji Virbhadrasinhji Gohil and Others Vs State of Gujarat and Others reported in 2015 (1) GLR 444. 9.4. It is applicable in the facts of the present case wherein, in the Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/342/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined said case, the crux of the matter is whether any claim could be made by the Respondent No.3-Society or its members in respect of the land other than which has been conveyed to the members by a registered sale deed individually. The land which was left out admittedly belonged to the petitioners as there was no dispute with regard to the title over the land inasmuch as the members of the Respondent No.3- Society also derive their title through the sale deed executed by the petitioners in favour of the members individually by a registered sale deed.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner herein having failed as to how the petitioner has any legal right to claim such area of land in his Khata No. 17805.92 sq. mts. or 4-16 Acre-Guntha, the petition herein is devoid of merit to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts are such that the same cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India however, it is open for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed. I don't find any reasons to interfere in the orders passed by the competent authorities. Rule is discharged.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) KUMKUM Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 20:59:59 IST 2026