The court held that the Deputy Collector's order setting aside multiple revenue entries was invalid due to procedural violations and lack of jurisdiction under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.

JUDGMENT :

Nikhil S. Kariel, J.

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Vakil with learned Advocate Mr. Tattvam K. Patel for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent-State.

2. The present petition is taken up for final hearing in context of an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20.02.2023 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 12962 of 2017, more particularly whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court had inter alia requested the learned Single Judge to decide the proceedings of the present petition expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of the order.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged an order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the City Deputy Collector (West), Ahmedabad, in RTS/Appeal/Case No. 180 of 2016, whereby the Deputy Collector, has inter alia set aside 07 different entries in one single proceeding.

4. At this stage, it requires to be noted that originally, vide an order dated 06.04.2017, a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, had recorded the submissions made by learned Advocate for the petitioners and had listed the matter for hearing on 10.04.2017. It appears that after a detailed hearing on 10.04.2017, the learned Co-ordinate Bench while issuing notice for final disposal making it returnable on 17.04.2017, had granted interim relief in terms of paragraph 7(c) i.e. during pendency of the present petition, the order impugned dated 10.03.2017 would remained stayed. It appears that the said order had been challenged by the respondent-State by preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 633 of 2017 along with Civil Application No. 5115 of 2017 and whereas the Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 12.04.2017, while issuing notice to the respondents in the said appeal, had granted interim relief in terms of prayer 5(B) in the Civil Application.

4.1 It appears that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court had been challenged by the petitioners herein before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and whereas originally vide an order dated 02.05.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while issuing notice, had directed interim suspension of the impugned order. Later on, vide order dated 20.02.2023, referred to hereinabove, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter alia noted the above facts and also further noted that since the main dispute was pending adjudication before the learned Single Judge of the High Court, appropriate directions for deciding the same could resolve the issue. Accordingly as noted hereinabove, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had requested the learned Single Judge of the High Court to decide the proceedings of the present petition expeditiously preferably within a period of three months form the date of the order i.e. 20.02.2023. It also requires to be observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide the said order dated 20.02.2023 had inter alia directed status quo in respect of the entries in the revenue record in respect of the disputed property to be maintained by both the sides.

5. Before adverting to the legal submissions made by learned Advocates for the rival parties, this Court will address an issue with regard to maintainability of the petition raised by learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah on the ground that the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy of challenging the order in question before the appropriate authority as set out in the statute i.e. the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.

5.1 Learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Vakil for the petitioners would vehemently objected to the preliminary objection by relying upon observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 20.02.2023, referred to hereinabove, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court had inter alia requested this Court to decide the petition expeditiously. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said order has inter alia observed as thus :

"Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute the fact that in the facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate that the main dispute itself pending adjudication bef