IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13979 of 2018 ==========================================================

RAMABHAI VALABHAI PATEL Versus THE SECRETARY & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR DEEP B KOTHARI(12220) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR SIDDARTH DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Date : 05/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:

“A. Be pleased to admit and allow the present Special Civil Application.

B. Be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari and/or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any appropriate Writ, Direction or Order by quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.10.2015 in Revision being MVV/HKP/SBR/38/2012 passed by Respondent No.1, order dated 07.12.2010 passed by the Respondent No.2 as well as order dated 27.12.2009 passed by Respondent No.3 and further direct the authorities to restore the Entry 847.“

2. The facts of the case of the petitioner, as per the memo of the petition, can be summarized in nutshell as under:

2.1. The land admeasuring 15,884 sq. mtrs. bearing Block No.343 Paiki situated at village Tiski, Taluka: Malpur, District Aravalli was jointly held by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein. The said land has been consolidated under the consolidation scheme and entry No.489 came to be mutated on 27.12.1980. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased half portion of the said land i.e. land admeasuring 7,942 sq. mtrs. by way of executing a registered sale deed dated 16.04.2007 from respondent No.5. In the sale deed the condition of joint cultivation is inserted, which is agreed by the present petitioner. Pursuant to the execution of registered sale deed, an entry No.784 came to be mutated on 22.05.2007. Being aggrieved by the said entry, respondent No.4 herein has raised objections and therefore RTS proceedings came to be initiated by the concerned revenue authority. After considering and appreciating the materials, the Mamlatdar passed an order, whereby, entry No.784 came to be cancelled as the prior permission of the competent authority has not been obtained before entering into the transaction in question.

2.2. Thereafter, once again an entry No.847 came to be mutated in the record of rights and the same is certified on condition of joint cultivation by both the owners. Being aggrieved by the said entry, the respondent No.4 herein has preferred RTS appeal before the Deputy Collector, Modasa. The Deputy Collector allowed the said appeal by way of passing an order dated 27.12.2009 and thereby cancelled the entry No.847 on the ground that before selling the said land, prior permission of the competent authority has not been obtained. The Deputy Collector also ordered initiation of the proceedings for breach of the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act.

2.3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Collector, Modasa, proceedings for breach of provisions of Section 9(1)(2)(3) of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act came to be initiated, wherein, notice came to be issued to the petitioner and thereafter the Deputy Collector, Modasa, vide order dated nil, August, 2010, filed the notice issued to the petitioner for breach of provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act on the ground that the land is not fragmented and the same is irrigated by one borewell of Block No.342.

2.4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 27.12.2009 passed by the Deputy Collector, the petitioner has preferred revision before the Collector. However, the said revision came to be dismissed by the Collector vide impugned order date