Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 52 (GUJ)

Maisuria Mohanbhai Nanubhai v. State of Gujarat

2026-02-03

VAIBHAVI D.NANAVATI

body2026
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. N.R. Desai, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners herein are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 5.8.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 – Collector in Order No.3091/19/03/032/2023 as well as the order dated 28.4.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 in Revision Application No.MVV/BKP/VDD/02 of 2024 for grant of N.A. Use Permission, having prayed for the following reliefs:- “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the respondent No.3- Collector in Order No. 3091/19/03/032/2023 (at ANNEXURE-A hereto) as well as order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the respondent-SSRD in Revision Application No.MVV/BKP/VDD/02 of 2024. at ANNEXURE-L hereto); (B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the respondent No.3-Collector in Order No. 3091/19/03/032/2023 (at ANNEXURE-A hereto) as well as order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the respondent-SSRD in Revision Application No. MVVI BKPIVDD/02 of 2024 at ANNEXURE-L hereto); (C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 3. The dispute pertains to land bearing Block / Revenue Survey No.486 (Old Block/Survey No.362/B), admeasuring 20,478 sq. mtrs., situated at Moje : Kumetha, Taluka Waghodiya, District Vadodara which is owned by the petitioners herein. Upon an application preferred by the petitioners herein under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1948, the land was converted into non-agricultural use for residential purposes by order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the respondent-Collector. The converted land is now assigned City Survey No.NA-486, Sheet No.NA-99, situated at Moje Kumetha, Taluka Waghodiya, District Vadodara. 3.1 The petitioners herein preferred similar application on 19.5.2023 with respect to land situated at Block/Revenue Survey No.485 (Old Block/Survey No.362/A) which came to be rejected by order dated 17.07.2023 on the ground of adverse opinion by the DILR by order dated 05.08.2023. 3.2 Pursuant to the order dated 05.08.2023, Entry No.3491 was mutated on the same date and duly certified on 19.08.2023. 3.2 Pursuant to the order dated 05.08.2023, Entry No.3491 was mutated on the same date and duly certified on 19.08.2023. Upon certification of such entry, the private respondent Nos.5 and 6 fraudulently executed a Registered Sale Deed on 08.08.2023 purporting to purchase the land from the petitioners which came to be mutated in the revenue record as Entry No.3491. 3.3 The petitioners herein also instituted Special Civil Suit No.45 of 2023 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Savli, District : Vadodara on 29.12.2023 for cancellation of the aforesaid Registered Sale Deed dated 08.08.2023 and permanent injunction against respondent Nos.5 and 6 which is pending. 3.4 In the interregnum period, the respondents have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of plaint. 3.5 The respondent No.3 Collector granted N.A. Use Permission to the petitioners herein on 05.08.2023 which came to be challenged by the petitioners herein by way of Revision Application No.MVV/BKP/VDD/2 of 2024 after a period of eight months and eight days. 3.6 The said revision application came to be rejected on the grounds of locus and delay by impugned order dated 28.04.2025. The aforesaid has given rise to filing of the present petition. 4. Mr. N.R. Desai, the learned advocate submits that the petitioners herein are aggrieved by issuance of N. A. Permission granted to the private respondents considering the fact that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 fraudulently obtained sale deed on 08.08.2023 from the petitioners herein without paying full consideration wherein suit is instituted by the petitioners herein, as referred to hereinabove. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is subject matter of challenge. 5. It is apposite to refer to the order passed by the learned Special Secretary Revenue Department dated 28.4.2025 in in Revision Application No.MVV/BKP/VDD/02 of 2024, paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6, which read thus:- “(3.5) As per the detail of the said paragraph, the applicant, after converting the land in dispute into non-agricultural land, has sold it out to the Respondents in this matter namely, Gandhi Vrutti Rakeshbhai and Gandhi Devisha Rakeshbhai by way of executing registered sale deed. Thus, to obtain the permission for non- agricultural, the applicant himself had made an online application, and after the Collector granted such non-agricultural permission, the applicant sold out the land to the Opponents. Thus, to obtain the permission for non- agricultural, the applicant himself had made an online application, and after the Collector granted such non-agricultural permission, the applicant sold out the land to the Opponents. Subsequently, after a period of 8 months and 8 days, the applicant has raised an objection against the impugned order of the Collector, which is not admissible. When the applicant, upon receiving consideration in respect of the disputed land, has sold it out to other persons, he does not retain any interest in the said land. The Respondents have purchased the land in question through a registered sale deed, and upon perusal of the record produced, it does not appear that the said document of sale deed has been cancelled by the competent Court. The Deputy Director, Land Records, Vadodara has also filed the objection application made by the applicant and has ordered to certify the entry regarding the sale. Therefore, no locus remains with the applicant in the land in question. The applicant, having converted the said land to non-agricultural, sold it out, and even though he has also raised objections against the entry regarding sale. Even though, he states that, since he is ignorant of the Law, the delay of eight months and eight days has occurred, the instant matter is not acceptable. (3.6) In view of the said facts, upon considering the submissions of the applicant and the documentary evidence produced, since the applicant does not have any locus in the disputed land, and since the delay caused in filing the appeal against the impugned order of the Collector is not liable to be condoned, the following order is passed in this matter.” 6. This Court has perused the impugned order dated 28.4.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 - learned Special Secretary Revenue Department in Revision Application No.MVV/BKP/VDD/02 of 2024 wherein it is held that the petitioners herein have sold the property in question to the respondent Nos.5 and 6. The entry of the registered sale deed is mutated in the revenue record, though the petitioners herein have objected before the office of the learned DILR. 7. The petitioners had converted the land into non-agricultural and sold it, however challenged the order dated 5.8.2023 passed by the Collector granting N.A. Use Permission after a period of eight months and eight days. 7. The petitioners had converted the land into non-agricultural and sold it, however challenged the order dated 5.8.2023 passed by the Collector granting N.A. Use Permission after a period of eight months and eight days. The petitioners herein upon receiving consideration in respect of the disputed land had sold it to the other persons, does not retain any interest in the said land. 8. The impugned order dated 5.8.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 – Collector in Order No.3091/19/03/032/2023 as well as the order dated 28.4.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 in Revision Application No.MVV/BKP/VDD/02 of 2024, in the opinion of this Court, require no interference. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. In view thereof, no case is made out to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.