Gujarat High Court
Anju Ranchodbhai Bharvad vs State Of Gujarat on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11362/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11362 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
ANJU RANCHODBHAI BHARVAD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 25/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP waives service of rule for the respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is an agriculturist and cultivating the land which has come to her by way of heirship. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner along with brothers came to be mutated vide entry No.12252 dated 20.01.2020. He submits that the State Government has come out with a policy which states that for purchase of any agricultural land, the person has to satisfactorily hold a Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:18:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11362/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined Certificate of Agriculturist. Accordingly, the petitioner who is desirous of purchasing agricultural land made an application to the respondent No.2 for grant of a Certificate of Agriculturist. It is submitted that by order dated 10.08.2022, the application of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that by mutation entry No.2082, the forefather of the petitioner had purchased the agricultural land by way of registered sale deed and therefore, it cannot be verified whether the petitioner was original agriculturist or not. Accordingly, her application is consigned to file. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not given opportunity of proving that she is an agriculturist. Further, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the Shirastedar in his opinion has recommended grant of Certificate of Agriculturist to the petitioner. He submits that it has been clearly recorded in the opinion of the Shirastedar that agricultural land being held by the petitioner was originally purchased by the grand father of the petitioner vide mutation entry No.2082 dated 21.09.1958. He submits that after the death of her grand father Bharvad Nodha Nathu, the names of the legal heirs of the deceased Bharvad Nodha Nathu came to be entered on 30.03.1995 vide mutation entry No.8052. He submits that thereafter by an application, the father of the petitioner has added the names of all his children in the revenue records of the subject land which came to be mutated by entry on 20.01.2020 and duly certified by Dy. Mamlatdar on 05.03.2020. He submits that since the family of the petitioner is holding agricultural land in question since 08.01.1957, the Certificate of Agriculturist cannot be denied to the petitioner.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:18:00 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11362/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined 3.1 In support of his contention, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court in case of
(a) Chaital Rashmikant Bhatt v. State of Gujarat Special Civil Application No.14388 of 2015 decided on 19.04.2017 and (b) Mansukhbhai Haridas Kanabar v. State of Gujarat - Special Civil Application No.6567 of 2020 decided on 18.08.2021. By the said decisions, it has been held that there is no concept of "original agriculturist" in the Tenancy Act and the same is without any legal basis or foundation. It has been further held that the agriculturist would be a person who fits in the definition under the Tenancy Act. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the Tenancy Act defines agriculturist is a person who cultivates the land personally and to cultivate personally means to cultivate land on ones own account, by one's own labour, or by the labour of any member of one's family, or under the personal supervision of oneself or any member of the family by hired labour or by servants on wages payable. He, therefore, submits that in view of the fact that the famly of the petitioner is holding subject land in question since 08.01.1957 and no adverse proceedings have been proceeded against her, the petitioner is entitled for a Certificate of Agriculturist and therefore, the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the Dy. Collector be quashed and set aside.
4. Per contra, Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that by GR dated 31.07.2020, the State Government has introduced online method to obtain Certificate of Agriculturist which would validate the status of a Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:18:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11362/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined person as an agriculturist. He submits that for the said purpose, the applicant is required to produce relevant documents in accordance with the GR dated 26.12.2008 to authenticate the fact that the applicant is an agriculturist. He submits that the petitioner herein has failed to provide the requisite details to establish that the forefather of the petitioner was owner of the agricultural land from promulgation. He submits that the revenue entry No.2082 dated 21.09.1958 entering the name of the grandfather of the petitioner in respect of the subject agricultural land reflects the purchase of the said land. However, the said mutation entry does not record the grand father of the petitioner to be an agriculturist and therefore, it cannot be ascertained as to how the grand father of the petitioner was agriculturist before purchase of the subject land. He submits that mere purchase of the agricultural land by the ancestors of the petitioner will not entitle her to get Certificate of Agriculturist. He submits that in view thereof, the Dy. Collector has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that no inteference is called for in the present Special Civil Application.
5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record.
6. It is not in dispute that vide entry dated 21.09.1958, the grand father of the petitioner Bharvad Nodha Nathu has purchased the subject agricultural land by registered sale deed dated 08.01.1957. The subject land thereafter is running in the Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:18:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11362/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined name of the heirs of Nodha Nathu Bharvad till date. The petitioner's name is entered in the revenue records by mutation entry No.12252 dated 20.01.2020, which is also not in dispute. Furtheer, the Shirastedar in his opinion to the Dy. Collector has opined that the petitioner herein is holding agricultural land by way of heirship and is entitled to the Certificate of Agriculturist. Admittedly, no proceedings for breach of any conditions has been iniaited against the family of the petitioner in respect of the subject land since the year 1957. All the entries in favour of the heirs of Bharvad Nodha Nathu are also duly certified by the revenue authorities. It is now well settled by catena of decisions of this Court that the status of agricultirist depends upon holding of an agricultural land. The subject agricultural land is being held by the grand father of the petitioner since 08.01.1957 and is devolved upon family members including the petitioner till date. The status of being agriculturist has not come in question by the revenue authorities since the mutation entry No.2082 dated 21.09.1958 on the basis of the registered sale deed, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be erroneous to hold that the petitioner has to produce evidence on record to show that her grand father was not an agriculturist prior to the purchase of the agricultural land in the year 1957. Further, the revenue entires are consistent in respect of the agricultural land since 21.09.1958 on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 08.01.1957.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the rejection of the application of the petitioner for grant of Certificate of Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:18:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11362/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined Agriculturist is held to be erroneous and the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 is quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities, after a period of more than 64 years, cannot question the agriculturist status of the grand father of the petitioner and insist on documents as on the date of promulgation. The Special Civil Application accordingly is allowed. The respondent No.2 Dy. Collector, Halvad Prant Office, District Morbi is directed to process the application of the petitioner and grant Certificate of Agriculturist within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
The present Special Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
Direct Service is permitted.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:18:00 IST 2025