Gujarat High Court
Govindbhai Maganbhai Suthar vs Ratilal Chunilal Patel Since Deceased ... on 8 December, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1192 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20836 of 2006
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1192 of 2025
==========================================================
GOVINDBHAI MAGANBHAI SUTHAR & ORS.
Versus
RATILAL CHUNILAL PATEL SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HEIRS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
AADITYA D BHATT(8580) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
CHANDNI S JOSHI(9490) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR SANJAY UDHWANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR RUTVIJ M BHATT(2697) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1
MR MAULIN RAWAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. GNANESH G
BHATT(10015) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 08/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we may note that this intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ-petition filed by the appellants herein/original petitioners challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities in the Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:34:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [in short 'The Tenancy Act, 1948'] have been upheld.
2. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that on an application under Section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act, 1948 filed by the respondent no.1 before the writ Court namely the heirs and successors of Chunibhai Dwarbhai, notice was issued to the appellants herein/ original petitioners. The petitioner no.2 namely Manharbhai Maganbhai Suthar had appeared before the Mamlatdar on behalf of all the petitioners. It was the case of the petitioners before the Mamlatdar that Bhaijibhai Shankerbhai was their grand-father who had expired 23 years back and they were not aware of any possessory mortgage on the subject land. The subject land is in possession of respondent no.1 and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely their grand-father or their father had never tilled the subject land.
3. It is recorded by the learned Single Judge that on the basis of the above statement as well as the mutation entry no.9169 dated 05.06.1981, effecting the name of respondent Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:34:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined no.1 through heirship, the Mamlatdar has held that the grand- father of respondent no.1 was the original owner of the land in question as per the revenue records and it seems that the subject land was kept in mortgage to the grand-father of the petitioners. It is categorically recorded by the Mamlatdar in the order impugned that the subject land has always been in physical possession of the predecessors of the respondent no.1.
4. It is further noted by the learned Single Judge that the Mamlatdar and ALT in the order impugned observed that twice, proceedings under the Tenancy Act were initiated against the predecessor of respondent no.1 and the same were dropped as there was mention of mortgage in respect of the subject land.
5. Taking note of the aforesaid facts, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the revenue authorities including the revenue tribunal which are based on the revenue records in respect of the subject land. It is also noted by the learned Single Judge that none of the factual findings could be Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:34:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined successfully controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners either by way of the revenue record or any other documents in support of the same.
6. Taking note of the above, we may deal with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in the present appeal. By placing the documents appended as Annexures 'A', 'B' 'C' and 'D' to the writ-petition, it was sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the appellants herein/ original petitioners that the predecessor of respondent no.1 namely Chunibhai Dwarbhai though was initially recorded as the protected tenant in the entry no.2939 dated 06.03.1953, certified on 01.06.1953 [Page- '16' of the paper-book of the writ-petition], however, he was later recorded as an ordinary tenant.
7. Attention of the Court is invited to the revenue entry no.3120 dated 10.09.1955 wherein the name of Suthar Bhaijibhai had been recorded as the possessor whereas the name of Chunibhai Dwarbhai was recorded as an ordinary tenant. With reference to revenue entry no.9169 dated 05.06.1981 at Page- '18' of the writ-petition, it is sought to be Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:34:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined argued that the names of heirs of Chunibhai Dwarbhai were recorded in the revenue records on the basis of heirship. Placing Annexure-'D' to the writ-petition at Page- '16' thereof, it was submitted that the name of Chunibhai Dwarbhai was recorded in the revenue records from the year 1951-52 to 1958-59.
8. The contention is that once the predecessor-in-interest of respondent no.1 was recorded as an ordinary tenant, the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to make a declaration of the applicant/respondent no.1 being the owner of the subject land. The contention is that the order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 15.12.1993 is beyond the scope of jurisdiction conferred upon him by virtue of Section-70(b) of the Tenancy Act, 1948.
9. The submission is that the respondent no.1 filed application under Section-70(b) for seeking a negative declaration of him being the owner of the land in question and not a tenant, which could not have been entertained within the scope of Section-70(b) of the Tenancy Act, 1948. The appeal and revision filed by the original petitioners have, thus, Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:34:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined been dismissed illegally by the appellate and revisional authority.
10. With reference to the entries at page- '84B' of the writ- petition, it is further sought to be submitted that the proceedings under Section-32G of the Tenancy Act, 1948 came to be initiated and in the said proceedings, the Mamlatdar held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and hence, they were dropped. Revenue entry no.4470 dated 29.08.1962 at page- '84B' has been placed before us to submit that the name of the tenant was bracketed in the revenue records and taking advantage thereof, the respondent no.1 made an application to the Mamlatdar & ALT under Section-70(b) of the Tenancy Act, 1948, which was numbered as Tenancy Case No.102 of 1993 wherein a declaration has been made of the respondent no.1 being not tenant of the subject land, the Mamlatdar & ALT by order dated 15.12.1983 ordered to enter the name of respondent no.1 as occupant and to delete his name as tenant.
11. Taking note of all these submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, we made a pointed query Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:34:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined to the learned counsel for the appellants to give the correct status of the appellants namely the heirs and legal representatives of Suthar Bhaijibhai Shankarbhai, i.e. his right, title and interest in the land in question. No plausible answer could be given from the contents of the writ-petition, inasmuch as, there is no description about the right of predecessor of the petitioners over the land in question.
12. However, from the revenue entry no.4470 dated 29.08.1962, which contains the extract of the order dated 26.03.1962 passed in Tribunal Case No.211, it is evident that the predecessor-in-interest of the original petitioners namely Bhaijibhai Shankarbhai Suthar was not the original owner or the landlord of the land in question. The extract of the order dated 26.03.1962 recorded in the revenue entry no.4470 dated 29.08.1962 indicates that the land in question was mortgaged to Bhaijibhai Shankarbhai Suthar by one Chhatarbhai Bapabhai and it is for this reason, it was held in the proceedings under Section-32G that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Bhaijibhai Shankarbhai Suthar and Chunibhai Dwarbhai, whose name was recorded as tenant in the revenue records. It is also Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:34:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined pertinent to note that in all the revenue entries placed before us of the year 1953 and 1955, the predecessor of the petitioners namely Bhaijibhai Shankarbhai Suthar has been shown as the occupant (SaH[NFZ) and not as the landlord.
13. In this scenario, the question is as to whether the original petitioners have locus to participate in the proceedings drawn by the Mamlatdar to challenge the claim of the respondent no.1 in the application under Section-70(b) of the Tenancy Act, 1948. Once it could not be shown before us that the predecessor of the petitioners namely, Bhaijibhai Shankarbhai Suthar was owner/landlord of the land in question, it is not possible for us to accept that the petitioners have any right to contest the claim of the original tenant in the proceedings under Section-70(b) of the Tenancy Act, 1948.
14. The concurrent findings of the fact returned by the revenue authorities as noted by the learned Single Judge are also in the same line where the Mamlatdar while noticing that Bhaijibhai Shankarbhai Suthar, grand-father of the petitioners had never been in possession of the land in question and the Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:34:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined petitioners were not aware of the any possessory mortgage on the subject land.
15. The findings returned by the revenue authorities as affirmed by the learned Single Judge that the land-in-question remained in the physical possession of the predecessor of the respondent no.1 throughout, could not be assailed before us.
16. For the above reasons, we do not find any error in the decision of the learned Single Judge. In addition to the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, we find it fit and proper to record that in our considered opinion, the original petitioners namely heirs and legal representatives of Bhaijibhai Shankarbhai Suthar had no locus to challenge the status of the original tenant when they have never been in possession of the land in question and the name of their predecessor was recorded as mortgagee. As there was no landlord and tenant relationship between the predecessor of the petitioners that of respondent no.1, no infirmity can be attached to the decision of the revenue authorities.
17. For the above, we do not find it a fit case for inference. Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:34:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined The appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, the civil application for stay do not survive and hence, the same is disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:34:36 IST 2025