High Court of Gujarat
JAGDISHBHAI LAKHUBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Decided
- Disposal
- 36-MCA DISPOSED OF
Holding
The review application is dismissed.
Summary
The High Court of Gujarat entertained a review application filed by Jagdishbhai Lakhubhai Patel seeking relief against the State of Gujarat and others. The Court first condoned the delay in filing the review, noting no serious objection. The applicant argued that a 379 sq.m. area reserved for a town‑planning road under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (Section 48A) should have been adjusted under the scheme rather than acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and that he had purchased a larger plot supported by a sale deed. The Court rejected these contentions, holding that the issues were not raised before the writ court, the petitioner failed to produce the requisite sale deed, concealed material facts, and violated an interim status‑quo order. Consequently, the review was dismissed as impermissible.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the review application can be condoned.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to adjustment of the 379 sq.m. area under the Gujarat Town Planning Act instead of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the review is maintainable given the issues were not raised in the original writ proceedings.
- Whether the absence of a sale deed precludes determination of the petitioner’s claim to the land.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- review
- condonation of delay
- town planning scheme
- land acquisition
- Gujarat Town Planning Act
- Section 48A
- sale deed
- concealment of facts
- interim order
- status quo
Judgment
C/CA/2178/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2178 of
2026
In R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION/1641/2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/356/2004
With
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1641 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 356 of 2004
================================================================
JAGDISHBHAI LAKHUBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
MR. MIHIR THAKORE, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MS DELSHAD A
KAPADIA(10238) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR DHAVAL G NANAVATI(2578) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 02/07/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. Heard Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel for
the review applicant and perused the record. At the outset, we
may note that the to the delay in filing application seeking
recall/review of the judgment and order dated 09.07.2025,
there is no serious objection.
2. Further, noticing the fact the applicant has filed the
Page 1 of 5
C/CA/2178/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
present review application after dismissal of the Special Leave
Petition vide order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the Apex
Court against the final judgment and order dated 09.07.2025
(subject matter of review), the delay in filing the review
application is hereby condoned. Office is directed to allot the
regular number to the review application.
3. Coming to the merits of the review application, the
submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the review
applicant are twofolds. The first contention is that the Draft
Town Planning Scheme was sanctioned by the State
Government on 25.06.1996, whereunder an area of 379 sq.
mtrs. was reserved for T. P. Road and, thus, vested with the
Corporation/local authority by virtue of Section 48A of the
Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.
With the vesting being absolute in the appropriate authority
free from all encumbrances under Section 48A of the Act,
1976, there was no question of acquisition of the same area
for the same purposes. However, the notifications under
Sections 4 and 6 were published in the year 1997 onwards,
subsequent to the sanction of the Draft T. P. Scheme by the
State Government on 25.06.1996 and the land acquisition
Page 2 of 5
C/CA/2178/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
award dated 31.08.2000 came to be passed with respect to
the acquired area.
4. The contention is that the petitioner is entitled for
adjustment of an area of 379 sq. mtrs., reserved for the T. P.
Road under the Draft Town Planning Scheme, as per the
Gujarat Town Planning Act, 1976. However, instead of giving
the benefits of the Town Planning Act for the area carved out
as T. P. Road, in an illegal manner, the same area was
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 resulting into
denial of the adjustment of the said area under the Town
Planning Scheme.
5. This submission deserves to be rejected outrightly for
the simple reason that it was not pressed before the writ
Court in the first round of hearing, when the matter was
heard and judgment and order dated 09.07.2025 was dictated
in the open Court.
6. Moreover, the statement made in the writ petition that
the petitioner had purchased an area of 1240 sq. mtrs.
forming part of the original plot No. 42 (New No. 31/1 paiki)
could not be substantiated by the petitioner, as noted in the
Page 3 of 5
C/CA/2178/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
judgment under review, by bringing on record the sale-deed
dated 11.04.2000, executed in favour of the petitioner. The
petitioner being a subsequent purchaser was required to
disclose the interest acquired by him over the land in question
by virtue of the document of transfer of title to him.
7. It is categorically recorded in the judgment under review
that in the absence of the sale deed executed in the name of
the petitioner, it is not possible for the Court to ascertain the
exact area/boundaries of the plot in question which was
purchased by the petitioner. Such a disclosure was incumbent
to deal with the contention of the petitioner for the benefits of
the Town Planning Scheme for the entire area of the Original
Plot No. 42. Further, in the judgment under the review, it is
categorically recorded that the writ petition has been filed by
concealment of material facts and during the pendency of the
writ petition, the petitioner had sold the Final Plot No. 103
admeasuring 431 sq. mtrs. in favour of a third (3 rd) party vide
sale deed dated 21.07.2018, in violation of the interim order
dated 04.07.2005 whereby this Court has directed the parties
to maintain status quo regarding the land in question. For the
above reasons, the submissions made by the learned Senior
Page 4 of 5
C/CA/2178/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
Counsel for the review applicant based on the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat V/s. Shantilal
Mangaldas and Others, cannot be appreciated.
8. As regards the second submission about the area of 430
sq. mtrs. of Revenue Survey No. 31/1/paiki (Original Plot No.
88) having not been included in the boundaries of the T. P.
Scheme No. 7, suffice it to note that the same has already
been dealt with in the judgment under review. It is settled law
that rehearing in the shape of review is impermissible.
9. In the end, having already reached at the conclusion that
the writ petition is full of contradictory statements and
misleading facts, we do not find it a fit case for review, on the
legal arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel based on
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat
V/s. Shantilal Mangaldas and Others.
10. With the above, the review application stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
VARSHA DESAI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: VARSHABEN VAGHAJIBHAI DESAI(HC01393), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/07/2026 13:24:09
Page 5 of 5
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.