SUN AAKAR DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRMversusTHE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND COLLECTOR

     C/SCA/17579/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17579 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================

             Approved for Reporting               Yes          No

==========================================================
          SUN AAKAR DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM & ORS.
                                Versus
            THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND COLLECTOR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS AESHA GANDHI FOR MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR NIKUNJ KANARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 04/05/2026

                                JUDGMENT


1.       RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP
for the respondents waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
the respondents.


2.       With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective
parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today.


3.       Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of The Indian


                                  Page 1 of 5
     C/SCA/17579/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026




Registration Act, 1908 and Gujarat Registration Rules, 1970
seeking following reliefs:


         “(A) To admit and allow this petition;


         (B) to issue a writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate
         writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing and
         setting aside the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 (Received
         on 18.12.2025) (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No. 1
         District Registrar cum Collector, Valsad in cancelling the
         registered sale deed dated 11.08.2023 and be further pleased
         to restrain the City Survey OfÏce, Vapi, from certifying any
         entry (Annexure-H (Colly)) on the basis of the order dated
         07.10.2025 (Annexure-A) passed by Respondent No.1 herein.


         (C) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this
         petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution,
         operation and implementation of the impugned order
         07.10.2025 (Received on 18.12.2025) (Annexure-A) passed by
         respondent No.1 - District Registrar cum Collector, Valsad.


         (D) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this
         petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain City Survey
         Superintendent, Vapi, respondent No.3 herein from making any
         City Survey entry on the basis of the order dated 07.10.2025
         (Annexure-A) passed by the District Registrar cum Collector and
         also be pleased to direct him not to delete name of the
         petitioners which was mutated in the City Survey record
         (Annexure-D) on the basis of the registered sale deed dated
         11.08.2023 (Annexure-C);


         (E) to pass such other and further orders as may be expedient
         and necessary in the circumstances of the case.”


4.       Heard Ms Aesha Gandhi, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Mr Mehul Sharad Shah, learned counsel for the


                                   Page 2 of 5
     C/SCA/17579/2025                         JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026




petitioners and Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP for the
respondents.


5.       Ms. Gandhi, learned counsel has submitted that the
impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 is illegal, unjust,
arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on
record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, is required to
be quashed and set aside. She has submitted that the impugned
order was passed without giving any opportunity to the
petitioner and therefore, it is in violation of the principles of
natural justice and the impugned order is bad in the eye of law.
She has submitted that the document was registered in the year
2023 wherein some rectification was required and therefore,
Rectification Deed was executed on 07.10.2023 before the
concerned authority. She has submitted that after two years of
rectification of document, the concerned authority has raised
objection; however, without considering the facts and without
going into the merits, the impugned order was passed by the
respondent no.1. Over and above the contentions raised in the
memo of petition, Ms. Gandhi, learned counsel has urged that
the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 is required to
be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to
be allowed.


6.       As against that, learned counsel Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned
AGP appearing for the respondents, has opposed the present
petition and submitted that there is no any infirmity or any
illegality in the impugned order passed by the respondent
authority and therefore, no interference is required to be called
for in the present petition. He has submitted that the impugned

                                Page 3 of 5
     C/SCA/17579/2025                         JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026




order passed by the respondent authority is in consonance with
the settled principles of law and is passed after following due
procedure and therefore, the same is required to be confirmed
and the present petition is required to be dismissed.


7.       I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and perused the materials placed on record. I have also
considered the impugned order passed by respondent no.1. It
appears that respondent no.1 while exercising jurisdiction under
section 68(2) of The Registration Act, cancelled the registered
sale deed dated 11.08.2023 of the petitioner vide order dated
07.10.2025. It appears that the registered sale deed required
some rectification and hence, a Rectification Deed was executed
however, respondent no.1 has not taken cognizance of the same.
It appears that respondent no.1 has passed the impugned order
without considering the facts and without going into the merits of
the case and also without hearing and according an opportunity
to the petitioners.


8.       Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the opinion that the matter is required to be
remanded back to respondent no.1 for fresh decision and the
petition deserves to be allowed.


9.       In view of the above, present petition is allowed. The
impugned order passed by respondent no.1 is quashed and set
aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no.1 for
fresh decision. The respondent no.1 shall hear and decide the
matter, after considering the contentions/submissions agitated
by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within

                                Page 4 of 5
     C/SCA/17579/2025                                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026




 a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of writ of
 this order. It is open for the concerned parties to raise all the
 contentions available in the eye of law and the respondent no.1
 shall decide the matter in accordance with law and without being
 influenced by the order passed in the earlier proceedings after
 hearing the petitioners and the parties to the proceedings shall
 co- operate with the concerned authority for deciding the matter
 in a time bound manner and shall not seek any unnecessary
 adjournment. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
 Direct service is permitted.

                                                               (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
 ANUSRI

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/05/2026 18:02:59




                                                 Page 5 of 5