High Court of Gujarat
NATHAJI JAVANJI THAKOREversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- DIVYESH A JOSHI
Holding
The orders dated 13‑10‑2007 and 29‑10‑2009 are quashed and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration as they violate the principles of natural justice.
Summary
The petitioners challenged two orders – one dated 13‑10‑2007 by the Collector and another dated 29‑10‑2009 by the Sub‑Divisional Revenue Officer – which allowed a private respondent’s appeal and consequently led to the cancellation of land allotted to the petitioners. They contended that the authorities denied them a proper hearing, despite a request for adjournment on 09‑10‑2007, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The respondents argued that the orders were based on a full consideration of the facts and could not be interfered with. The High Court examined the procedural history, noted that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to be heard, and relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence on natural justice. Concluding that the orders were passed in breach of natural justice, the Court quashed both orders and remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh consideration with due hearing, without addressing the merits of the land‑allotment dispute.
Issues considered
- Whether the Collector’s and SSRD’s orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.
- Whether such a violation warrants quashing of the orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1908.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 227
Subjects
natural justiceopportunity of hearingquashing of orderland allotmentconstitutional remedyBombay Land Revenue Codeadministrative law
Judgment
C/SCA/3099/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3099 of 2010
=======================================================
NATHAJI JAVANJI THAKORE & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR P RAVAL for MR CHIRAG M PANCHAL(5349) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,2,3,4,4.1,4.2,5,6
MR RAHUL DAVE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1-6
MR AR PATEL(5838) for the Respondent(s) No. 7
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 05/08/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By filing present petition under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India as well as under
the provision of the Bombay Land Revenue Code,
1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, the
petitioners have challenged the order dated
29.10.2009 passed by the respondent no.2 and the
order dated 13.10.2007 passed by the respondent
no.3.
2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Jigar P. Raval
assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Chirag Panchal
for the petitioners, learned AGP Mr. Rahul Dave
for the respondent nos.1 to 6 and learned
advocate, Mr. A.R. Patel for the respondent no.7.
3. Learned advocate, Mr. Raval referred to the facts
of the case and the documents produced on record
and submitted that the private respondent had
initiated proceedings against the petitioners
Page 1 of 9
C/SCA/3099/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2026
under the provision of the Revenue Code and
thereby challenge the order of allotment in favour
of the petitioner before the respondent –
Collector and pursuant thereto, the petitioners
have been served with the notice and pursuant
thereto, the petitioners had appeared before the
authority on the first date of hearing, which was
kept on 30.08.2007, however on that day, hearing
could not be taken place as the respondent –
Collector was busy in some administrative work,
therefore, the matter was adjourned to 11.09.2007
and on that day, the private respondent had
submitted his reply and the matter was kept on
09.10.2007 for the reply of the petitioners,
however on the next day of hearing i.e. on
09.10.2007, as learned advocate for the
petitioners was out of station, a request was made
to grant adjournment, which was orally granted,
however thereafter, the impugned order came to be
passed on 13.10.2007, whereby the respondent –
Collector had allowed the appeal preferred by the
private respondent, therefore, the petitioners
challenged the said order before the respondent –
SSRD by filing revision application, wherein all
above facts have been categorically pointed out,
however without properly appreciating the said
facts of the case, the respondent – SSRD rejected
the said revision application on merits,
therefore, both above orders have been challenged
by the petitioners before this Hon’ble Court.
Page 2 of 9
C/SCA/3099/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2026
4. Learned advocate, Mr. Raval has taken this Court
towards the findings given by the respondent –
Collector as well as the respondent – SSRD and
submitted that if the Hon’ble Court would make
cursory glance upon the orders impugned coupled
with the memo of revision application preferred by
the petitioners before the respondent – SSRD, in
that event, it is found out that the respondent –
SSRD has not considered the contentions raised by
the petitioners in the memo of revision
application and passed impugned orders. He,
therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are
in gross violation of principle of natural justice
in view of the fact that no proper opportunity of
hearing was provided to the petitioners, which has
resulted into great injustice to the petitioners.
He submitted that if the petitioners would have
been granted opportunity to defend their case, in
that event, they would have produced on record
material and evidence as also pointed out correct
facts of the case but the material suggests that
in haste, the respondent – Collector has passed
impugned order, which has been wrongly confirmed
by the respondent – SSRD. He submitted that
admittedly on 09.10.2007, a request was made for
adjournment by the petitioners as their learned
advocate was out of station, which was orally
accepted and, thereafter, the impugned order
allowing the appeal has been passed behind the
back of the petitioner only on the basis of the
Page 3 of 9
C/SCA/3099/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2026
submissions made earlier. He further submitted
that if the Hon’ble Court would make cursory
glance upon the order passed by the respondent –
SSRD, in that event, it is evident that the
respondent – SSRD has considered the merits of the
case, however, no specific finding has been given
on the aspect of violation of principle of natural
justice. He, therefore, submitted that in view of
the above facts of the case, the matter may be
remanded back before the respondent – Collector to
decide the said appeal afresh after providing
opportunity to the parties concerned.
5. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Dave has
objected to the present petition contending that
while passing impugned orders, the respondent
authorities have taken into consideration all the
facts of the case and passed impugned orders,
which may not be interfered with as the findings
given and conclusion arrived at are just and
proper. He, however, is not in a position to
dispute about the order passed by the respondent –
Collector in absence of learned advocate for the
petitioners. He, therefore, submitted that
considering the facts of the case, appropriate
order may be passed.
6. Learned advocate, Mr. Patel appearing for the
respondent no.7 has also opposed the present
petition contending inter alia that at the time of
passing impugned orders, the respondent
authorities have considered all aspects of the
Page 4 of 9
C/SCA/3099/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2026
matter and taken into consideration the
contentions raised by the petitioners. He,
therefore, submitted that the present petition may
be rejected.
7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and
having gone through the material available on
record, it appears that the private respondent had
challenged the order dated 08.08.2006 passed by
the respondent – Deputy Collector, whereby the
land has been allotted to the petitioners and
pursuant to the same, the petitioners have been
served with the notice to remain present before
the authority and the matter was kept on
30.08.2007, however on that day, the petitioners
remained present but because of some
administrative work, hearing could not be taken
place and the matter was kept on 11.09.2007 and on
that day, the reply was submitted by the private
respondent, therefore, the matter was kept on
09.10.2007 for the reply of the petitioners and on
that date, the petitioners have requested for time
on the ground that their advocate is out of
station and the request of the petitioners was
orally considered and without keeping the matter
for hearing and the submissions of the parties,
straightway order came to be passed on 13.10.2007,
whereby appeal preferred by the private respondent
has been allowed and when the said was
specifically pin-pointed before the respondent –
SSRD at the time of filing revision application,
Page 5 of 9
C/SCA/3099/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2026
however, except the said aspect of violation of
principle of natural justice, the merits of the
matter has been considered by the respondent –
SSRD and by impugned impugned order dated
29.10.2009, the said revision application has been
allowed, which has resulted into filing of the
present petition challenging those orders.
8. Having considered the order of the respondent –
Collector, it appears that despite the request of
the petitioners for adjournment, observation was
made that on 09.10.2007, none of the parties were
present, which in my considered opinion can be
said to be contrary to the documents produced on
record. And though the said aspect has been
pointed out before the respondent – SSRD, it has
not been properly considered. Thus admittedly,
there is gross violation of principle of natural
justice as proper opportunity of hearing has not
bee provided to the petitioners, who are aggrieved
by the impugned orders. Not only that, I have also
considered the memo of revision application
preferred by the petitioners before the respondent
– SSRD and found that there are specific averments
with regard to seeking adjournment on 09.10.2007,
however, there is no finding on that aspect.
However in view of numerous decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble
Court, opportunity of hearing is required to be
granted to the parties before passing order
against them.
Page 6 of 9
C/SCA/3099/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2026
9. At this stage, the decision delivered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alagaapuram
R. Mohanraj & Ors., Vs. Tamil Nadu Legislative
Assembly Represented by its Secretary & Anr.,
reported in (2016) 6 SCC 82, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that if the decision
making process is in non compliance of principles
of natural justice, violates Article 14 and non
supplying of relevant material relied upon for
reaching adverse conclusion, having civil or evil
consequences itself amounts to violation of
principles of natural justice. A reference made of
such observations is in Paragraph Nos.44 and 45 of
the said decision, which read as under,
"44. The principles of natural justice require
that the petitioners ought to have been
granted an opportunity to see the video
recording. Perhaps they might have had an
opportunity to explain why the video
recording does not contain any
evidence/material for recommending action
against all or some of them or to explain
that the video recording should have been
interpreted differently.
45. The Privileges Committee should have
necessarily offered this opportunity, in
order to make the process adopted by it
compliant with the requirements of Article
14. Petitioner No. 1 in his reply letter to
the notice issued by the Privileges Committee
seeks permission to give further explanation
Page 7 of 9
C/SCA/3099/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2026
when the video recording is provided to him.
The Petitioner No. 3 in his reply letter
states that he believes his version of his
conduct will be proven by the video
recording. The other petitioners do not
mention the video recording in their reply
letters. However, it is not the petitioners
burden to request for a copy of the video
recording. It is the legal obligation of the
Privileges Committee to ensure that a copy of
the video recording is supplied to the
petitioners in order to satisfy the
requirements of the principles of natural
justice The failure to supply a copy of the
video recording or affording an opportunity
to the petitioners to view the video
recording relied upon by the committee in our
view clearly resulted in the violation of the
principles of natural justice i.e. a denial
of a reasonable opportunity to meet the case.
We, therefore, have no option but to set
aside the impugned resolution dated
31.03.2015 passed in the Tamil Nadu
Legislative Assembly. The same is accordingly
set aside."
10. From the aforesaid proposition, may be under other
law, but touching to the principles of natural
justice, on that very count, the orders impugned
are since being clearly in conflict with the
proposition, the same deserve to be quashed, since
the petitioners are the aggrieved by the said
Page 8 of 9
C/SCA/3099/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2026
order and by the said order, the order of
allotment of land in their favour has been quashed
and set aside, therefore before passing adverse
order against them, opportunity of hearing ought
to have been provided, which here in the present
case on hand, admittedly not provided. Therefore
in my considered opinion, there is clear violation
of principle of natural justice, therefore, the
matter deserves to be remanded back for fresh
consideration by quashing and setting aside the
impugned orders, which would meet the ends of
justice.
11. In view of the above facts of the case, the
present petition stands allowed party. The
impugned order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the
respondent no.2 and the order dated 13.10.2007
passed by the respondent no.3 are hereby quashed
and set aside the matter is remanded back to the
respondent no.3 – Collector, Mehsana for deciding
the matter afresh after providing ample
opportunity to both the parties in accordance with
law. It is clarified that this Court has not
considered the merits of the case.
12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: GAUTAM G PATIL(HC00190), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/08/2026 18:50:56
Page 9 of 9
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "natural justice"Sign in to search