IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19798 of 2017 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No √ -

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

BHARTIBEN JAGDISHKUMAR THACKER Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ADITYA PATHAK AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 =======================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Date : 18/03/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for the respondents waives service of notice of rule.

2. By filing present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provision of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as “Revenue Code” for short), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the respondent – Collector in Revision Application No.6/2008 and also prayed for quashment of Entry No.4873 dated

01.03.2014.

3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for the respondents.

4. Learned advocate, Mr. Shah referred to the facts of the case and submitted that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the land situated at City Survey Ward No.2, Sheet No.168, City Survey No.3954 admeasuring 249.23 Sq.Mtrs. of moje Anjar City from the original land owner one Ramjan Umar Raima by way of executing registered sale deed and on payment of entire sale consideration. He submitted that after the purchase of the said land, the petitioner applied for development permission from Anjar Nagarpalika and pursuant thereto, development permission was granted on 05.08.1998 and on the basis of the said permission granted in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner had carried out construction as per the laying plan. He submitted that however to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, the petitioner has been served with a letter dated 29.01.2009 addressed by the respondent no.3, whereby the petitioner was informed that the respondent – Collector has initiated suo motu proceedings against the order passed by the City Survey Superintendent in the year 1997 declaring that the said land to be of the private ownership and on receipt of such letter, an inquiry was made by the petitioner and pursuant thereto, the petitioner came to know about the fact that by letter dated 10.04.2006 issued by the Settlement Commissioner, State of Gujarat to the Superintendent, Land Records, direction was issued to initiate suo motu proceedings. He further submitted that in fact, notice came to be issued upon the original owner, Ramjan Umar Raima on 20.12.2008 and also directed that no transfer of the said land be made during the pendency of Revision Application No.6/2008 and immediately thereafter, the respondent – Collector issued letter to the respondent – City Survey Superintendent, whereby direction was issued to inquire about the subsequent transaction of the land. He submitted that on receipt of such letter, the petitioner appeared before the respondent – Collector and filed her written submissions and reply dated 04.02.2009, where the petitioner had pointed out about the delay in initiation of suo motu proceedings relying upon the decisions of this Hon’ble Court and also pointed out about the bonafide transaction by executing registered sale deed. He submitted that thereafter also on 04.01.2012, the petitioner filed additional written statement before the respondent – Collector. He submitted that after considering the facts of the case and the documents produced on record, the respondent – Collector, by an order dated 30.12.2013, had jumped to a conclusion that he does not have jurisdiction in the matter and direction was issued to the respondent – Deputy Collector for challenging