IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2063 of 2012 ==========================================================

BHANJIBHAI DHANJIBHAI GOHIL THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER & ANR.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR HRIDAY BUCH, ADVOCATE FOR MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA(3242) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MS HETAL PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)

No. 1,2,3,4 MR SIDDHANT R SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,11,12,13,5,6,7,8,9 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.

JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 24/09/2025

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Heard Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Satyam Chhaya, learned advocate for the petitioners; Ms. Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Siddhant R. Shah, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Ankit Shah, learned advocate for the respondent nos.5 to 13.

2. The present petition has been filed in the year 2012 challenging the order dated 04.02.2012 passed in Land Reference Case No.169 of 1993 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli, in rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners for disbursement of compensation determined under the Reference Court Award passed in favour of the respondents. In the writ petition amongst various contentions made to assert the rights of the petitioners herein into the land-in-question, it is stated that the petitioners had challenged the Section 32(M) certificate issued in favour of the respondents by initiating the proceedings under Section 74 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [in short referred to as ‘the Act, 1948’] before the Deputy Collector, Amreli on the ground that the land-in-question was exempted as per Section-88(C) and the application of the landlord i.e. the predecessor in interest was already granted vide order dated 13.08.1959/ 30.09.1959, by the Deputy Collector. The Case No.1 of 2001 was initiated.

3. It is contended in the writ petition that the proceedings of Tenancy Case No.112 of 1968 under Section 32(G) which ultimately culminated into issuance of certificate under Section 32(M) dated 03.08.1992, was illegal and unjust and the same ought not to have been initiated. It is contended that considering the totality of the facts and circumstances vide order dated 26.12.2001, Section 32M certificate issued in favour of the private respondents herein dated 03.08.1992 was cancelled by the Deputy Collector. The respondents had filed revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal challenging the order dated 26.12.2001 which has been allowed vide order dated 19.03.2010, resulting into setting aside the order dated 26.12.2001 passed by the Deputy Collector.

4. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a writ application namely Special Civil Application No.5510 of 2010 which was partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 19.07.2010 setting aside the order of the Tribunal and remanding the matter back to the Deputy Collector. After remand, the Deputy Collector had initiated the proceedings in Case No.1 of 2011. It is further stated in the writ petition that in the remand proceedings, the petitioners made detailed arguments, contending that the land-in-question was exempted and certified under Section 88(C) in favour of the predecessor of the petitioners. A revenue entry with regard to the exemption in the form of entry no.3973 was also pointed out. However, a cryptic and unreasoned order was passed by the Deputy Collector dated 12.12.2011 holding that the certificate under Section 32(M) dated 03.08.1992 had rightly been issued by the Mamlatdar.

5. Aggrieved, the petitioners again filed revision under Section 76 of the Tenancy Act, 1948 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The statement