Issuance of notice to a deceased individual violates due process, necessitating fair opportunity for affected parties to contest proceedings.

ORDER :

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.)

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Dipen Chaudhary on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondent – State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners challenge notice dated 11.03.2025 under Section 202 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, which is issued consequent to order passed by the Mamlatdar, Satlasana in the proceedings, under Section 61 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, dated 17.01.2025.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are owners and occupiers of the land bearing Survey No.1073 situated at village: Satlasana, Taluka: Satlasana, District: Mehsana, and whereas the proceedings referred to hereinabove, arise from a notice issued to Mamlatdar, Satlasana, on 14.10.2024 under Section 61 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.

4. As per the submissions made by learned Aadvocate Mr. Chaudhary and this Court having verified the notice on record, it would appear that the notice is addressed to one Patel Bhikhabhai Punjabhai and others at Satlasana and whereas it is the case of the petitioners that Patel Bhikhabhai Punjabhai was one of the right holders in the land in question and whereas the said person has expired somewhere in the year 1999. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Mamlatdar, Satlasana, in Case No.1/2024 under Section 61 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code where also the name of said Patel Bhikhabhai Punjabhai is reflected. In this context, submitted that since the notice had been issued to a dead person and since the petitioners did not have get any right to contest the said notices, therefore, the proceedings before the Mamlatdar under Section 202 may be stayed qua the petitioners still an appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Deputy Collector, Kheralu, is decided at least as regards an application for interim relief, which is preferred by the petitioners in the said appeal proceedings.

5. Learned AGP Mr. Kanara under instructions, would submit that the proceedings were initiated against total of 21 persons, who were stated to be illegally occupied land bearing Survey No.171 at village: Satlasana (New Survey No.200) and whereas probably it is on account of large number of persons involved that the Revenue Authorities had missed out the fact that the addressee of the notice qua the land in so far as the present petitioners are concerned, had already expired. Learned AGP would further submit that as such, against order of the Mamlatdar under Section 61 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, the competent Authority to hear the Revision Application would be the learned GRT. Learned AGP would submit that under such circumstances, since appropriate opportunity had not been afforded to the petitioners, any orders of this Court in that regard, would be appropriately complied with.

6. As against the same, learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary would submit that it is not the learned GRT, but the Deputy Collector, who would be competent to decide the Revision Application / Appeal, which has been preferred by the petitioners.

7. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties, while it would appear that the notices were issued to large number of persons, alleging illegal occupation of the Government land, yet in so far as the present petitioners are concerned, it would appear that the notice had been issued to a person, who had interest in the land, which is held by the present petitioners, yet the same person having expired somewhere in the year 1999. It would thus, appear that the proceedings, in so far as the present petitioners are concerned, have been gone proceeded ex parte. Under such circumstances, appropriate direction to the authorities, which would hear the Appeal / Revision Application preferred by the petitioners, to hear the application for interim relief, within a stipulated time, would meet with the ends of justice:

8. Since the issue is on