The court emphasized that the absence of a challenge to a sale-deed and lack of reasoning in the Collector's order rendered the proceedings baseless, highlighting jurisdictional issues under the Land Revenue Code.

ORDER :

1. Learned Advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit with learned Advocate Ms. Monika Thakkar on behalf of the petitioners requests that civil application for amendment may be granted. The same is granted. Appropriate amendment to be carried out till 31.01.2025.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit with learned Advocate Ms. Monika Thakkar on behalf of the petitioners.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioners inter challenge order passed by the District Collector, Gandhinagar dated 27.11.2024, in suo motu Revision Case No. SR/ 11/2021 insofar as the said order directs remand of the proceedings to the Deputy Collector, Gandhinagar.

4. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Purohit and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. J.K. Shah, it would prima facie appear that the State had taken entry no. 9043 pertaining to land bearing survey /block no. 1986 at Village: Uvarsad in suo motu revision and whereas, vide the order impugned as noted hereinabove, while the entry is cancellled the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Collector. It would appear that the original owner of the land in question, had given a Power of Attorney to the predecessor in title of the present petitioners and the registered sale deed had been entered into after the demise of the original land owner. It would appear that the entry no. 9043 with regard to the sale-deed referred to hereinabove, was mutated in the revenue record on 14.12.1997 and certified on 26.05.1998. It would appear that in addition to the ground challenging the proceedings on extraordinary delay, it also appears that the order of the Collector, while in the operative portion it sets aside the entry and directs remand of the proceedings, at the same time, the order does not make out any reasons for setting aside of the entry in question rather, the Collector, inter alia notes that the power of attorney on basis of which the sale-deed had been entered into was an irrevocable power of attorney. The Collector also notes that after the purchase by the petitioners, at their request, NA permission had also been given by the Collector, Gandhnagar vide order dated 21.02.2010.

5. Having regard to the above, while it appears prima facie that there is no reason made out for setting aside of entry no. 9043 or remanding the matter to the Deputy Collector, it also prima facie appears to this Court that the issue in question would not be within the jurisdiction of the authorities exercising the power under the Land Revenue Code to decide. If the party in question i.e. the legal heir of the original owner, had any grievance with regard to sale-deed being entered into basis a power of attorney when the donee of the power of attorney had expired then appropriate proceedings ought to have been initiated by the said legal heirs which has not been done till now. In absence of any such challenge to the sale-deed and the sale-deed remaining in existence, and the sale-deed having been certified in the year 1997-98, to this Court prima facie it would appear that the proceedings itself were without any basis whatsoever.

6. Having regard to the prima facie observations, issue Notice for final disposal to the respondents returnable on 28.02.2025.

7. By way of ad-interim relief there shall not be any implementation of the order passed by the Collector, Gandhinagar dated 27.11.2024 in Revision/SR /11 of 2021. It is further observed that on the returnable date respondent no. 2 shall ensure appropriate representation failing which order shall be passed on the merits.

8. Learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent-State. Direct service for rest of the respondents is permitted.