IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15949 of 2022 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2026 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15949 of 2022 ==============================================================

NIMESH CHINUBHAI PATEL & ORS.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 MR DEEP B KOTHARI(12220) for the Respondent(s) No. 4 MS DEVANSHIBA RANA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,5 ==============================================================

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

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Kirtidev Dave, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Deep B. Kothari, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 4 and Ms. Devanshiba Rana, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State authorities.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioners herein have prayed for the following reliefs:

“17. Therefore, the petitioners pray that on the above grounds and on such ground as may be contended during course of the arguments:

a. Your Lordships be pleased to admit this petition.

b. Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction to the respondents declaring that the Order of the Mamlatdar, Dholera dated be declared as contrary to law and in violation of rule of natural justice and it be quashed and set aside and the entries be restored to its original position.

c. Your Lordships may be pleased to order further proceedings pursuance to the order of the Mamlatdar, respondent No. 3, and its operation be stayed/suspended pending admission, hearing and further proceedings of this petition.

d. Your Lordships be pleased to grant any other relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Briefly stated that Ghanshyamsinh Gumansinh had four parcels of land bearing Survey Nos. 488, 511, 512 and 585 (2), renumbered as Survey Nos. 752, 813, 811 and 895 respectively. The respondent No. 4 claiming to be son of that Ghanshyamsinh filed application before the Mamlatdar, Dholera in June, 2020. In the order no specific date is mentioned. Ghanshyamsinh is not admitted by the petitioner and further, the submissions are advanced without admitting and prejudiced to the rights of the petitioners over the subject of identity.

3.1. On the basis of the same, Mamlatdar passed the order under challenge. In the order it is referred that the petitioners are owner of the said lands and their names are to be replaced by the name of Ghanshyamsinh Gumansinh. Thus, the order is passed in favour of a dead person. The persons who are alive and on record have not received any intimation or notice for the order. Thus, no opportunity of hearing has been offered to the present petitioners whose rights over the land have been removed by the Mamlatdar.

3.2. The copy of the order has only been forwarded to the respondent No. 4 and no one else.

3.3. Ramdevsinh claimed that he is Ghanshyamsinh in the year 2007. The Mamlatdar allowed the claim and ordered that the name of Ghanshyamsinh be replaced as that of Ramdevsinh. On the basis of it and entry was mutated on 06.01.2007 as Entry No. 825.

3.4. Thereafter, by registered sale deed the petitioners purchased the land from the owner on record on 02.12.2010. In the meantime, one Karansinh challenged the order of Mamlatdar about change in the name before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector held on 26.12.2011 that Ramdevsinh is not Ghanshyamsinh but it is Karansinh. The said Karansinh filed Regular Civil Suit No. 119 of 2010 for declaration that he is real Ghanshyamsinh. The application for interim injunction in that civil suit was rejected. He preferred appeal against that order which was rejected. Ultimately the suit came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The restoration of the same was attempted by respondent no. 4 after the dea