JUDGMENT : 

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned AGP waives service of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State authorities.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. Heard Mr. Y.J. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned AGP appearing for and on behalf of the respondent – State authorities.

4. By way of the present petition, the petitioners herein have challenged the impugned order dated 18/12/2025 passed by the Collector, with respect to the land bearing Survey Nos. 255/1 Paiki 13/Paiki 1 admeasuring 8094 sq.mtrs. The petitioners' application came to be rejected by respondent no.2 on the ground that respondent no.3 – Mamlatdar & ALT, Botad has given negative opinion for converted aforesaid survey number of the land. It is further stated that the land bearing revenue Survey No. 255/1 admeasuring 10.00 acres allotted to two persons, viz. Haribhai Lakhabhai as well as Hamirbhai Lakhabhai, pursuant to the entry no. 364 came to be mutated, after that, entry no. 402 came to be mutated in the name of Haribhai Lakhabhai as well as Hamirbhai Lakhabhai, wherein, measurement of land bearing revenue survey no. 255/1 admeasuring 4.01 acre and deducted admeasuring 5.39 acre from the original allotment and further stated that the effect of the said mutation entry has not been given in Village Form No. 7/12, etc.

5.1. Mr. Patel, the learned advocate submits that the respondent authority had recalled the order dated 27/6/1962 and instead of granting 10 acres of land bearing revenue survey no. 255/1, 5.39 acres of land was granted under the head of gamtal. Therefore, 4.01 acres of land was allotted to two persons, viz. Harijan Hami Lakha and Harijan Lakha Hamir, for which an entry was posted as entry no. 402 in the record of rights on 30/9/64. By order dated 14/7/1965, the possession of the land was handed over to the said persons, for which entry no. 516 was mutated on 21/5/1968. Subsequently, succession entries came to be mutated in the revenue record.

5.2. By order dated 08/06/1999, the Mamlatdar released the survey numbers under the head of new tenure. The sale deed came to be executed by the legal heirs of the deceased Hamirbhai in favour of Dhirubhai Dehabhai Gida, bearing revenue survey no. 255/1 admeasuring 4 acres. By order dated 13/09/2012, the learned SSRD rejected the said application, since the allotment was for 10 acres, but entry no. 402 reflected 4.01 acre there is a discrepancy. The same gave rise to file the petition being SCA No. 2027 of 2013, wherein, the matter was remanded back to the Collector, Bhavnagar. Once again, against the said order, SCA No. 2611 of 2019 is filed and the same is pending.

5.3. The petitioner purchased the land in question from Dhirubhai Gida, bearing survey no. 255/1 paiki 13 only admeasuring 8094 sq.mtrs., for which entry no. 4831 was mutated on 01/01/2024 and certified on 05/02/2024 and the name is reflected in the 7/12 records. It is submitted that, in view of the fact that the petitioner herein has purchased the land in question, by way of a registered sale deed, for the aforesaid parcel of land of 8094 sq.mtrs. and the petitioner herein is also undertaking agricultural activity in the said parcel of land, the petitioners’ application under Section-65 of the Code was required to be considered on its own strength, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (for short ‘the Code’).

5.4. Mr. Patel, learned advocate submits that, admittedly, the case of the petitioners fall within the scope of Section -65 of the Code and it was not open for the competent authority to reject the application of the petitioners, placing reliance on the earlier entries, for the said dispute, the other proceedings are pending.

6. Ms. Pancholi, the learned AGP, submits that, since the application f