The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing an opportunity of hearing as per the principles of natural justice and considering the impact of pending civil suits and related court orders in land dispute cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehul Shah for learned advocate Mr. Vishal Mehta for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent-State.

2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

“a. A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Respondent No.1 in MVV/HKP/AHD/90/2011 dated 28.02.2011 and the judgment and order passed by the Respondent No.3 in RTS/Appeal Case No. 88/2007 dated 20.06.2009, by allowing the Revision Application preferred by the Petitioner before the Respondent No.1, as prayed for.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1 One Kantiji Chhaguji Thakore was holding a land bearing Survey No. 1284/2, T.P.Scheme No. 27 and Final Plot Nos. 4/42/1 and 4/12/2 of Village-Vejalpur, Taluka-City- District Ahmedabad. The petitioner-society purchased the said land from Kantiji Thakore and the agreement to sale was executed on 16.08.1990.

3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the order passed by the Revenue Authorities under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (‘ULC Act’ for short) the original owners had preferred Special Civil Application No. 3915 of 1992 before this Court challenging the same. This Court, vide order dated 12.05.1999 abated the proceedings initiated by the the Revenue authorities as the possession of the land in question was not taken by the authorities.

3.3 The State of Gujarat and Competent Authority challenged said judgment and order by preferring Review Application being Misc. Civil Application No. 1498 of 1999 before this Court which was rejected vide order dated 10.09.1999.

3.4 Thereafter, on 16.09.1999, the petitioner-Society purchased the land in question from its original owners by a registered sale deed and a Revenue Entry No. 8126 to that effect was mutated on 24.09.1999 in the revenuer records.

3.5 The State of Gujarat thereafter preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 978 of 2001 before this Court challenging the orders dated 12.05.1999 and 10.09.1999 and this Court on 29.07.2004 remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the case on merits.

3.6 A Revenue Entry No. 10274 giving effect to the aforesaid order was mutated in the revenue records on 08.10.2004 recording the order of maintaining status quo in respect of the land in question.

3.7 This Court, thereafter on 20.12.2006 passed an order rejecting the petition preferred by the original owners. Accordingly, the respondent No.3-Deputy Collector vide letter dated 24.01.2007 directed respondent No.5-Talati-Cum-Mantri to mutate the name of State of Gujarat in the revenue records of the land in question.

3.8 The Talati-cum-Mantri mutated the Revenue Entry No. 11279 on 13.04.2007 in favour of the State Government and certified the same on 29.05.2007.

3.9 Consequently, the petitioner-Society preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 75 of 2007 on 09.02.2007 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land in question in which the Civil Court vide order dated 09.02.2007 granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner by directing the State Government to maintain status quo in respect of the ownership and possession of the land. The interim relief was time and again extended.

3.10 Further, the petitioner-society preferred an appeal being RTS/Appeal/Case No. 88/2007 before the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, who by order dated 22.06.2009 dismissed the appeal without considering the fact of granting interim relief by the Civil Court.

3.11 In the meanwhile, the original owners have preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 617 of 2007 challenging order dated 20.12.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 3915 of 1992 before this Court which was dismissed by order dated 29.03.2012.

3.12 Aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2009, the petitioner-s