IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1805 of 2019 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI ===================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

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

SHAH SURBHIT MUKESHBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR JIGAR P RAVAL(2008) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. DEVANSHIBA RANA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4 MR. MANOJ T DANAK(6264) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,8 NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 9 REFUSED SERVED (N)(10) for the Respondent(s) No. 6 SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 5 UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 7 ===================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Date : 18/02/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Issue RULE, returnable forthwith. Ms. Devanshiba Rana, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State authorities. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken-up for final hearing.

2. Heard Mr. Jigar P. Raval, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Devanshiba Rana, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State authorities.

3. The petitioner herein invoked Article-226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 – the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) [for short ‘SSRD’] in Revision Application No. MVV/KON/VDD/1/2013 dated 03.10.2018 (Annexure-G), wherein, the Revisional Authority confirmed the order dated 22.05.2012 passed by the respondent no.3- Deputy Collector, Vadodara in Fragmentation Case No. 55 of 2011 (Annexure-F), wherein, the Deputy Collector arrived at a conclusion that the transaction, by which the petitioner purchased the land admeasuring 5784 for which entry no. 11922 was mutated in the revenue record, is in violation of Section 9(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Fragmentation Act’) and further declared the said transaction as void, under Section 9(1) of the Fragmentation Act. The aforesaid has given rise to the filing of the present Petition with the reliefs as stated herein-below:

“8. The petitioners therefore pray that:

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased issue a writ of mandamus and / or an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22/5/2012 passed by the Deputy Collector, Vadodara in Fragmentation Case No. 55/2011 at Annexure-F and be further impugned order dated 3/10/2018 passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No.

MVV/KON/VDD/1/2013 at Annexure-G.

(C) Pending hearing and till final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dated 22/5/2012 passed by the Deputy Collector, Vadodara in Fragmentation Case No. 55/2011 at Annexure-F and be further impugned order dated 3/10/2018 passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No.

MVV/KON/VDD/1/2013 at Annexure-G.

(D) Any other relief deemed just and proper may pleased be granted in the interest of justice.”

4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Petition reads thus:

4.1. The dispute is in respect of the land bearing Block No. 371 (Old Survey No. 421) admeasuring 7284 sq.mtrs. of Village: Bhayali, Tal. & Dist.: Vadodara (for short ‘the land in question’). The land originally belongs to Parshottambhai. Upon the death of Parshottambhai, the property came in five equal shares to the heirs of Parshottambhai. The name of all the co- owners were mutated in the revenue record and they were jointly cultivating the entire land as the joint property.

4.2. One of the co-owner, viz. Somabhai Parshottambha