IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 370 of 2026 ============================================= KANTILAL RAVJIBHAI DUDAKIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ============================================= Appearance: MR DHAVAL VYAS, SENIOR COUNSEL with MS POONAM M MAHETA(11265) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ANGESH A PANCHAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ============================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Date : 16/01/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Dhaval Vyas, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Poonam M. Maheta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Angesh A. Panchal, learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has challenged the impugned order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad, whereby, the learned SSRD declined to restore the status quo ante and retrospectively legitimized the coercive sealing action undertaken by the Officers subordinate to the Collector, at Gir Somnath on 11.12.2025. p. 2 3. Mr. Dhaval Vyas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the lawful holder and occupant of the land bearing Survey No.7/paiki-3, situated at Village : Chitrod, Taluka : Talala, admeasuring 0-80-94 Hec.. It is submitted that such exercise undertaken by the Officers is an exercise which is not in consonance with the order passed by the learned Collector, dated 26.04.2021, in No.Land/1/sharatbhang/18/2020 wherein, in exercise of powers under Section 66 of the Code, 1879 for breach of condition, by the impugned order, the direction is issued for demolition of the premises, which was carried in revision before the learned SSRD being No.MVV.JMN/GIR/13/2021. It is submitted that the learned SSRD by the interim order dated 31.07.2024 issued an order of status quo. It is further submitted that the said order could not be extended since the matter could not be taken up for hearing. It is submitted that subsequently, the order passed by the learned Collector, came to be stayed by the order dated 23.12.2025 however, the effect is given prospectively. In view thereof, in the interregnum period, the subject premise stands sealed. It is submitted that in absence of any order of sealing the premises, the impugned action undertaken by the p. 3 respondent authority is such that the same is required to be interfered with. It is submitted that it was not because of any lapse on the part of the parties that the order of status quo could not be extended. 4. Mr. Angesh A. Panchal, learned AGP appearing for the respondents submits that the premises came to be sealed considering the fact that the order of status quo dated 31.07.2024 was not extended. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, as submitted by Mr. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel that the subject premises are sealed, in the opinion of this Court, is an exercise which is in excess of the powers considering the fact that the impugned order passed by the Collector, dated 26.04.2021, directs the demolition of the premises exercising powers under Section 66 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. In the interregnum period, the order passed by the Collector stands stayed. Though it is not in dispute that the order of status quo could not be extended however, in the opinion of this Court, non-extension of status quo could not have resulted in sealing of premise. Such action appears to be without any authority under the law and without p. 4 issuance of any notice and is such that the same is required to be interfered with. It is also not in dispute that by order dated 23.12.2025, the order passed by the Collector stands stayed with prospective effect. 5.1 In view of above, without interfering with the impugned order, in the interest of justice, if the premises are sealed, the seals be reopened by the respondent authorities upon receipt of this order with immediate effect. 6. In light of the aforesaid, Mr. Dhaval Vyas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner does not press the further reliefs, as prayed for, in the present petition. 7. With the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted. (VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) NEHA