IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3934 of 2026 ===================================================

MAHENDRABHAI MANGALDAS SHAH & ORS.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR ANIQ A KADRI(11256) for the Petitioner(s) No.

1,2,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,3,4,5,6 MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Petitioner(s) No.

1,2,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,3,4,5,6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 ===================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Date : 20/03/2026 ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Nishit P. Gandhi, learned advocate with Mr. Aniq A. Kadri, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners.

2. By way of the present petition, petitioners herein are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Secretary Revenue Department (SSRD) – respondent no.2 in Revision Application No.

MVV/KON/VDD/6/2024 (Annexure-J) as well as impugned order dated 24.12.2018 passed by the learned Assistant Collector – respondent no.3 in suo-moto proceedings being No.

TUKDABHANG/ Case No. 979/2010 (Annexure-H).

3. It is the case of the petitioners that initiation of the proceedings under the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Fragmentation Act’) by the learned Assistant Collector are beyond the reasonable period, i.e. almost after a period of three years qua Survey No. 338, Block No. 394 admeasuring Hector-Are-Sq.mtrs. 0-41-62 of Mouje: Chansad, Tal.: Padra, Dist.: Vadodara, on the ground that the land in question is fragmented land and the sale is without seeking requisite permission from the competent authority.

4. It is submitted that, by the impugned order dated 24.12.2018 passed by the learned Assistant Collector, in Tukdabhang Case No. 797 of 2010, without joining the petitioners, the petitioners’ mutation entry, pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 21.08.2009, being no. 6208 which was certified vide order dated 10.10.2009 was also quashed, without granting any opportunity of hearing. While certifying the entry no. 6208, the authority also recorded that the petitioner is owner of adjacent block no. 397.

5. It is submitted that, in total disregarding to the aforesaid entry as referred to herein-above, duly produced at Annexure-E, the impugned order is passed by the Assistant Collector, Vadodara, wherein, the petitioners herein are also not made parties, holding the transaction to be void, wherein, the land vests with the original owner under Section 9(2) of the Fragmentation Act, upon payment and penalty to the tune of Rs.250/-, failing which the same would be recovered under the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and as provided under Section 9(3) of the Fragmentation Act, the occupants are directed to be evicted from the subject land.

6. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate submits that, being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners herein approached the learned SSRD by preferring Revision Application No.

MVV/KON/VDD/6/2024, wherein, by order dated 28.11.2025, the Revision of the petitioners came to be rejected, without taking into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioners herein in Para-2.18 of the Revision, duly produced at page-99. It is reiterated that, if the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing, petitioners could have assisted the competent authority by pointing out the correct facts and settled law and could have also pointed out that the petitioners herein are in possession of both the Block Nos. 394 and 397, in line with the aforesaid mutation entry.

7. Issue NOTICE returnable on 20.04.2026. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent no.1.

8. Let there be interim relief in terms of Para-10(B).

9. Direct service is permitted qua rest of the respondents.

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)

Pradhyuman