Gomiben Radkabhai Varli Alias Dhediya And ORS v. The Administrator, Union Territory Of Dadra And Nagar Haveli And Daman And Diu, Daman And ORS

Santosh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4220 OF 2026 Gomiben Radkabhai Varli Alias Dhediya And Ors

...Petitioners

Versus

The Administrator, Union Territory Of Dadra And Nagar Haveli And Daman And Diu, Daman And Ors

...Respondents

Mr. Manoj Badgujar, for the Petitioner.

Dr. Sanjay Jain, a/w Harsh Dedhia, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATED:

6th APRIL, 2026 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.04.14 18:29:20 +0530 Oral Order:- 1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2.

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 30th October, 2025 purportedly passed by the Personal Assistant to the Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, in appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 5th April, 2025, whereby, by way of a corrigendum, the Collector of Dadra and Nagar Haveli has cancelled the order dated 22nd November, 2024 passed in an enquiry in respect of the agricultural land transferred through Will without the permission of the Collector, Dadra and Nagar 1/3

Haveli. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in the first place, the Collector should not have cancelled the earlier order dated 22nd November, 2024, by way of a corrigendum, and when the statutory appeal was preferred before the Administrator, the Personal Assistant to the Administrator had returned the appeal opining that, the Administrator cannot be the proper forum to challenge the impugned order.

3.

The Court finds that, ex facie, the appeal has not been disposed of by the Administrator in the manner in which a statutory appeal is expected to be decided by the Administrator, under Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Land Revenue Administration Regulation, 1971.

4.

In any event, the Administrator ought to have heard the parties and passed an appropriate reasoned order himself. Under no circumstances the statutory appellate power could have been delegated to an official in the office of the Administrator.

5.

Thus, the impugned order dated 30th October, 2025 stands quashed and set aside.

6.

The appeal preferred by the Petitioners stands restored to the file of the Administrator.

2/3

7.

The Administrator is requested to hear the parties and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

8.

The petition stands disposed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 3/3