Gujarat High Court
Shivabhai Punjabhai Jadav vs Girishbhai Ramehbhai Patel on 7 August, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/995/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 995 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1 of 2018
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 995 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2018
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 995 of 2025
==========================================================
SHIVABHAI PUNJABHAI JADAV & ORS.
Versus
GIRISHBHAI RAMEHBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
SHRENIK R JASANI(9486) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS HETAL PATEL ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No.6, 7, 8, 9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY):-
There is no objection to the delay in filing the present appeal. The delay caused in filling the main Letters Patent Appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
The delay is condoned. The Civil Application is disposed of.
The Registry is directed to allot regular number to the Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:42:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/995/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined Letters Patent Appeal, forthwith.
ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL:-
1. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the challenge was to the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the Revision Application No.206 of 2003, filed by the petitioners herein. The petitioners herein claim to be the heirs and legal representatives of Punjiben Punjabhai Jadav.
2. It seems that the proceedings were initiated by the petitioners, the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Punjabhai Lallubhai Jadav on the premise that the deceased Punjabhai Lallubhai Jadav was a sitting tenant of the land-in- question on the tillers day, i.e. 01.04.1957. The proceedings initiated by the petitioners under Section 32(1B) were brought to this Court in Special Civil Application No.4086 of 1981, wherein the revisional order dated 20.01.1980 was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar & ALT to decide the question of tenancy in the light of evidence that Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:42:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/995/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined may be brought by the parties before it. The direction was to consider the whole evidence and case of the parties without being carried away by the judgment in appeal or revision passed by the revenue authorities including the tribunal. It seems that after remittal, both, the Mamlatdar & ALT as also the Collector had decided against the petitioners which had led to filing of Revision Application No.206 of 2003 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2016, subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.
3. A perusal of the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal indicates that the tribunal has categorically recorded that the Mamlatdar & ALT in Tenancy Case No.36/34 decided on 15.11.1960 held that Punjabhai Lallubhai Jadav was not the sitting tenant of the land-in- question. The said order records that the tenant had handed over the possession of the land-in-question on his own 06 years ago and that he did not want to cultivate or buy the land-in-question himself.
4. It seems that after the said decision rendered in 1960, the tenant had died and the heirs of the tenant, namely the Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:42:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/995/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined petitioners herein had filed a civil suit wherein the Civil Court framed issue with respect to tenancy of the original tenant namely Punjabhai Lallubhai Jadav and made a reference to the revenue authorities to decide the same. The proceedings, thereafter, had been conducted by the revenue authorities.
5. The revenue tribunal records that the witness of the petitioners in his testimony recorded on 10.05.2009 and in cross-examination stated that he had no knowledge of the earlier order dated 15.11.1960 and that he did not know the true facts regarding the dispute between the parties. The tribunal further records that according to the record 7/12 extract of 1955-56, which has shown cultivation pattern-1, the name of the original tenant was not recorded. There was no evidence that the tenant had possession of the land-in- question.
6. The learned Single Judge has further noted that the deposition of the father of the petitioner namely Punjabhai Lallubhai Jadav recorded in the year 1960 that the possession of the land-in-question was handed over to the landlords 06 years before the said deposition, has rightly be relied upon by Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:42:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/995/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined the authorities. Once the material before the authorities indicated that the possession was surrendered voluntarily in favour of the original owner, no case is made out by the petitioners about possession of the land-in-question by mere statement of a small room being in their occupation.
7. Taking note of the above, we find that the order dated 15.11.1960 which was passed during the lifetime of the father of the petitioners namely Punjabhai Lallubhai Jadav namely by the original tenant, has attained finality. The proceedings drawn by the petitioners herein after the death of the tenant, namely Punjbhai Lallubhai Jadav in the form of civil suit against the original landlord and further reference made by the Civil Court to the revenue authorities would not take away the finality attached to the order dated 15.11.1960. The findings returned by the revenue tribunal as affirmed by the learned Single Judge that the heirs of the original tenant had failed to prove the possession of the tenant on the tillers day in the subsequent proceedings drawn by them, cannot be said to suffer from any error of law. The present appeal, is accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:42:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/995/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined Consequently, the Civil Application for Stay would not survive and the same is disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:42:11 IST 2025