ORAL ORDER

In view of the averments made in the note for speaking to minutes, the same is allowed. Therefore in Paragraph Nos.2.2, 4.2, 5, 5.1 and 8 of the order dated 27.02.2026, instead of “18 Guntha”, it should be read as “20 Guntha”. Registry to carry out necessary correction and issue fresh writ accordingly.

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)

Gautam

ORAL JUDGMENT

1) By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issued a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 20/01/2018 in MVV/HKP/Gir/47/2017 passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department Ahmedabad.

(C) Such other and further relief that is just, expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.

2) The case of the petitioner can be summarised in a nutshell as under:

2.1) The original property owner is the owner and occupant of the land bearing Survery No. 1594(678), Hectare 0-31-36 Are. The said property is divided into two parts and one portion has been purchased by the petitioner by way of executing a registered sale deed. The size of the property purchased by the petitioner is 15 Are 13 Square Meters. Pursuant to execution of a registered sale deed, an entry was mutated in the revenue record on 04.04.2014 vide Entry No. 24416. The said entry had not been certified by Mamlatdar, Veraval. The said entry was cancelled by assigning the reasons that notices under Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code were issued to the respective parties. The transactions had taken place between the parties by way of execution of a registered sale deed, however, the petitioner failed to produce a certificate of agricultural status.

2.2) Therefore, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said decision of the Mamlatdar, an appeal had been filed before the Deputy Collector. The said appeal had not been entertained by assigning the reasons that the petitioner had already produced a certificate of his status of an agriculturist by way of producing certain revenue records. However, the record reveals that the area of the property is less than 18 Gunthas and, therefore, the said transaction would clearly fall under the category of breach of the provisions of the Fragmentation Act. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said decision, a revision application was preferred before the Collector and the said view also confirmed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in the appeal proceedings. Hence, the present petition is filed.

3) Heard learned advocate Mr. Dev D. Patel for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Surbhi Bhati for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

4) Learned Advocate Mr. Dev D. Patel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted position of fact that the petitioner had become the absolute owner and occupant of the said property by way of executing a registered sale deed. Pursuant to the execution of the registered deed, an entry had been mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No. 24416. Thereafter, at the time of certification of the said entry, as per the procedure, notices were issued to the concerned parties under the provisions of Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The parties have confirmed the said transaction. The petitioner failed to produce the agricultural certificate and therefore, the said entry was not certified.

4.1) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision delivered by the Mamlatdar, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner had already produced the documents showing his status as an agriculturist. Upon verifying and scrutinizing all those documents and materials available on record, the Deputy Collector formed an opinion that documents placed by th