IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6969 of 2024 ==========================================================

PARMAR (HARIJAN) MULABHAI GANESHBHAI & ANR.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR SS TRIVEDI(3514) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Date : 10/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. S. S. Trivedi, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State.

2. The petitioners herein have invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 11.4.2018 passed by the learned Special Secretary (Appeal), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat – respondent No.2 herein in Revision Application No.MVV/HKB/BNS/56 of 2016 confirming the order passed by the District Collector, Banaskatha – respondent No.3 herein in Application No.B/Jamin-4/Appeal Case No.222 of 2015 dated 5.5.2016 wherein the petitioners’ Appeal under Rule 108(5) of the Rules 1972 challenging the Entry No.11 pursuant to the promulgation at Village : Tadav, Taluka : Vav before the District Collector, Banaskantha, as referred to hereinabove, came to be rejected mainly on the ground of delay, wherein the land bearing Survey Nos.29, 301, 388 and 300 which were allotted to petitioners’ father Harijan Ganesh Meha by way of Entry No.6 on 29.5.1956, the subject lands are in possession of the petitioner herein – Harijan Mulabhai Ganeshbhai, the dispute is raised qua Entry No.11 whereby Survey Nos.414 and 415 vest with the State Government.

The aforesaid has given rise to the filing of the present petition.

3. Mr. S. S. Trivedi, the learned advocate submits that the aforesaid anomaly occurred in the land vesting with the State Government by way of Entry No.11, is an error pursuant to the promulgation. In view thereof, the said error be rectified.

3.1 It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 was illiterate and only doing agriculture activities was not aware of the entries and that Entry No.11 was mutated and thereafter some proceedings in Survey No.414 were initiated. Entry No.212 was entered by order of Mamlatdar before the death of the petitioners’ predecessor in

1984.

3.2 It is submitted that the petitioner was only two years old, when the petitioner’s father expired. When he grew up, it was found in the revenue record that the land vest with the Government. It is submitted that without proper examination of the materials on record and without properly considering the fact that the aforesaid entry was mutated behind the back of the petitioner and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the affected persons and without complying with the provisions of the Code, the learned District Collector, Banaskantha by order dated 5.5.2016 rejected the petitioner’s application only on the ground of delay.

3.3 It is submitted that the aforesaid was carried in Revision Application No.MVV/HKB/BNS/56 of 2016 before the learned Special Secretary Revenue Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned SSRD’ for short) wherein the learned SSRD mechanically decided the matter relying upon the observations made by the learned District Collector, Banaskantha without proper assessment of factual as well as legal issue, without appreciating the Entry Nos.11 and 212 by the Mamlatdar and without observation of the relevant provisions of the Code. The same was certified without opportunity of hearing to the affected persons. The authority also did not consider the Entry No.6 in which the name of the petitioner’s father, survey number, area and name of the land was very much in the revenue record.

3.4 It is submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondent authority are required to be quashed and set aside mainly on the ground that th