SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 5070

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LIMITEDV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
R/SCA/19795/2016



Reserved On : 04/02/2026 Pronounced On : 12/02/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19795 of 2016 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

CAV JUDGMENT

1. By way of preferring present petition, the petitioner have prayed for the following main relief/s:

“(A) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.08.2016 (posted on 12.09.2016) passed by respondent No.1 herein in Revision Application No.39/2014 and also the order dated 02.06.2014 passed by the District Collector, Amreli in Remand Case No.9/2013.

(B) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside condition No.3 imposed vide order dated 21.10.1985 by the District Development Officer, Amreli and thereby be pleased to declare that the land allotted to the petitioner Bank was an old tenure land.”

2. The facts of the case of the petitioner can be summarized in nutshell as under:

2.1. The Nagar Panchayat, Babra was holding certain parcels of Gamtal land prior to 1955 and intended to sell some portion of such Gamtal land to the petitioner bank. The Nagar Panchayat, Babra, therefore, sought permission from District Development Officer, Amreli to sell the said Gamtal land to the petitioner. The District Development Officer, Amreli granted the permission with certain terms and conditions. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the said portion of Gamtal land by executing a registered sale deed. The petitioner had paid 25% more price than the market price of such land. Thereafter, the petitioner started construction work of building including 14 shops after approval of plans by the Nagar Panchayat, Babra. Thereafter, the petitioner had given the said shops on rent. The petitioner is carrying on banking activities in the said premises since 1985. Thereafter, in the year

2011, the RBI informed the petitioner Bank to dispose of non-banking assets as it is in violation of Section 9 of the Banking Regulations Act. Therefore, petitioner Bank had passed a resolution and intended to sell those 14 shops. The petitioner sought prior permission from the District Development Officer, Amreli to sell out the shops. However, during the interregnum period, since the Nagar Panchayat, Babra had turned into Nagarpalika, the DDO forwarded the said proposal to the District Collector, Amreli along with his remarks. The District Development Officer concerned informed the Collector that there is breach of condition of original permission and therefore appropriate action is required to be initiated by the District Collector. Thereafter, the District Collector had initiated the proceedings for breach of condition and issued show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Collector and filed written submissions. After considering the materials available on record, the Collector passed the impugned order under Section 211 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, vesting the entire property of the petitioner bank in the Government. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, petitioner bank preferred revision before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department. The said revision also came to be rejected. Hence, present petition is filed by the petitioner.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the respon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top