C/SCA/6509/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6509 of 2025 ========================================================== JITENDRAKUMAR DASHRATHLAL PATEL Versus SECTION OFFICER / DEPUTY SECRETARY , REVENUE DEPARTMENT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: JAY J JANI(9303) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR NIKUNJ KANARA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 08/05/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jay Jani appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Nikunj Kanara appearing on behalf of the respondent – State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Chitnis to the Collector, Ahmedabad more particularly whereby a representation of the petitioner for re-grant of the land in question has been consigned to file. 3. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate C/SCA/6509/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 Mr.Jani and having perused the documents on record, it would appear that vide an order dated 22.09.2023, a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.16543/2023 had acceded to the request of the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Collector for regularization of his possession pursuant to Government Resolution dated 28.08.2023. The learned Coordinate Bench had inter alia directed that in case the applicant approaches the concerned authority based upon the Government Resolution dated 28.08.2023 within a period of two weeks, then the authority would take appropriate decision within a period of six months thereafter. 3.1. It would appear that while the petitioner had approached the authority in question vide his representation dated 06.10.2023, the same came to be rejected by the authority vide communication dated 06.03.2025. 4. Perusing the impugned order, it would appear that the only reason on which the application has been consigned to file is a negative opinion of the deputy Collector. To this Court, it would appear that the impugned order passed by the Collector deserves interference mainly on the ground that C/SCA/6509/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 inspite of a specific direction of this Court that the Collector shall take an appropriate decision keeping in mind the policy of the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 28.08.2023, the impugned order has not been passed by the Collector rather the impugned order has been passed by an officer much subordinate to the Collector in the collectorate concerned. 4.1. It would also appear that the order is required to be interfered with on the ground that the High Court had directed the Collector to take decision and whereas, as noted hereinabove, the application has been disposed of at the behest of an officer much junior to the Collector. It would further appear that the said decision also does not reflect any appropriate application of mind by the authorities concerned primarily being the Collector concerned. 4.2. In this regard, it would required to be observed that the application of the petitioner is consigned to file based upon an opinion given by the Deputy Collector dated 31.01.2025 and whereas, to this Court, it would appear that merely accepting the opinion would not serve the purpose more particularly when the said authorities were under an embargo of the C/SCA/6509/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 direction of this Court. The authority concerned i.e. the Collector was required to consider whether the objections by the Deputy Collector were germane to the issue or not and whereas, the Collector should have passed a decision independently in accordance with law. To this Court, it would appear that merely mentioning the negative opinion of the Deputy Collector would not be and cannot be considered as reflection of an application of mind by the authorities concerned. The observations also would be equally applicable insofar as the requirement of any order to have reasons for the final decision. 5. Having regard to the observations hereinabove, the present petition requires interference. Hence, the following directions are issued:- (i) Impugned order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Chitnish to Collector, Ahmedabad is hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) The Collector is directed to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for re-grant dated 06.10.2023 in light of Government Resolution dated 28.08.2023 within a C/SCA/6509/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and whereas, it is observed that decision shall be taken by the Collector himself and by no authority subordinate to the Collector. (iii) It is clarified that in case the authority so deem appropriate, the petitioner shall be given an appropriate opportunity of hearing. 6. With these observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted. (NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Bhoomi Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: BHOOMI YOGESHBHAI MISTRY(HC01557), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/05/2025 18:38:07