IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8626 of 2016 ==========================================================

LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED PANCHABHAI NATHUBHAI AMIPARA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR JEET R JOTANGIA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR A R THACKER(888) with MR SHIVANG A THACKER for the Respondent(s) No. 5 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 23/09/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner herein challenges the order dated 19.04.2016, whereby the respondent No.5 has been granted the benefit of regularization under Section 54A of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “Ordinance, 1949” for short) in respect of the transaction relating to predecessor-in-title of the respondent No.5, who was non-agriculturist. The petitioner herein claims to be the son of the original owner Pachabhai Nathubhai Amipara, who had sold the land to one Dhirajlal Tarachand Badani by way of registered sale deed, for which, the mutation entry No.1008 dated 29.02.1988 came to be mutated in favour of said Dhirajlal Tarachand Badani at the relevant point of time and the same was also duly certified by the competent authority. The original owner Pachabhai Natubhai Amipara, the father of the petitioner, expired on 17.01.1991 i. e. four years after the said sale transaction. That thereafter, the said Dhirajlal Tarachand Badani sold the subject land in question by way of registered sale deed dated 10.04.1998 to one Prakashbhai Sidpara and Sarojben Sidpara. The mutation entry No.1433 came to be effected on the basis of the said sale transaction, which was duly certified by the competent authority. The said Prakashbhai Sidpara and Sarojben Sidpara thereafter further sold the subject land to the respondent No.5 herein by registered sale deed dated 09.02.2004. The mutation entry in the name of the respondent No.5 also came to be effected being mutation entry No.1586, which came to be duly certified on 10.09.2004. That, by suo motu revision proceedings in respect of mutation entry No.1008 in favour of Dhirajlal Tarachand Badani, the learned Collector, vide order dated 12.08.2004, was pleased to set aside the said mutation entry No.1008 in favour of Dhirajlal Tarachand Badani. Pursuant thereto, the proceedings under Section 75 of the Ordinance, 1949 came to be initiated against the respondent No.5 for eviction in Saratbhang Case No.1 of 2013 by issuing show cause notice dated 25.03.2013. Pending the said proceedings, by way of amendment i.e. Amendment No.28 of 2015, Sections 54A and 54B came to be inserted in the Ordinance, 1949. The respondent No.5 applied for the benefit of regularization under Section 54A. By the impugned order dated 19.04.2016, the learned Mamlatdar, Kotda Sangani, granted the benefit of regularization under Section 54, who was the last purchaser/occupant of the subject land and also an agriculturist. Aggrieved by the said order of regularization in favour of the respondent No.5, the petitioner herein has preferred the present Special Civil Application seeking an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order dated

19.04.2016 in favour of the respondent No.5.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Collector setting aside the revenue entry No.1008 in favour of Dhirajlal Tarachand Badani was never challenged by the respondent No.5 or any of the subsequent purchasers. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a result thereof, under the provisions of Ordinance, 1949, the subject land would automatically revert back to the petitioner. He submits that as a natural corollary to the said order, the pe