ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Dharmesh M. Devnani and Mr. Siddhant K. Gujarathi, learned advocates for Nanavati Associates appearing for the petitioner.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (G.R.T.) dated 19.08.2025 passed in Revision Application No. 127 of 2025 wherein, the petitioner’s application for staying the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad in Tenancy Appeal No. 121 of 2023 and Tenancy Review Case No. 578 of 2023 which are subject matter of challenge wherein by the impugned order, the Deputy Collector has remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar to decide afresh on the ground that there is no bar of res judicata for the proceedings that came to be culminated qua the petitioner herein wherein the proceedings were dropped by the Mamlatdar as back as on 13.05.1988 was confirmed by the G.R.T. by order dated 05.09.2014 in Revision Application No. 24 of 2012. A review was also filed which also came to be rejected by order dated 12.02.2015. That the aforesaid would not in any way be a bar for reconsidering an application an objection raised by a third party for breach of Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (for short, “the Act”) wherein notice is issued under Section 84C of the Act that:

“The inquiry appears to be incomplete and defective in detail. From the perspective of merits and demerits, it wass considered that the present case is not barred by the principle of res judicata. Regarding the changes made in Entry Nos. 3751 and 3753, it was said to be necessary to re-examine whether they are consistent with the provisions of Section 63, as well as Sections 2(2) and 2(6) of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, it is deemed just and proper to remand the case to the Mamlatdar and the Agricultural Tribunal, Sanand, for fresh scrutiny and decision.”

2.1. It is submitted that if the impugned order is permitted to be implemented, the petitioner’s revision application before the G.R.T. being Revision Application No. 127 of 2025 would as such be rendered infructuous and the same would affect the rights of the petitioner wherein in the submissions made by Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel, submits issued has attained finality as back as in the year 2014.

3. The objections raised by the third person are contrary to the provisions of Section 84C of the Act wherein such proceedings are permitted to be initiated either by the Mamlatdar suo moto or upon an application made by an interested person who has reason to believe that such transfer or acquisition is or becomes invalid under any provision of the Act and that such notice under Section 84C of the Act could be issued.

4. The submissions made by Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel, prima facie, require consideration

5. In view of the aforesaid, issue Notice making it returnable on 01.05.2026. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP waives the service of notice for and on behalf of respondent no. 1.

6. In the interregnum period, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 17.02.2025 is directed not to be acted upon in the interest of justice.

6.1. It is, however, clarified that the aforesaid would not come in way of the G.R.T. in deciding the main revision application in accordance with law.

Direct service is permitted qua respondent nos. 2 to 4.