Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Tusharbhai Chandubhai Patel on 11 December, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5838/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5838 of
2025
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 33953 of 2025
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 33953 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20079 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In F/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 33953 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20079 of 2023
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
TUSHARBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 11/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) This is a wholly misconceived appeal filed on behalf of the State appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the learned single Judge.
2. At the outset, we may note that the delay of 319 days has not been explained to the satisfaction of the Court, inasmuch as, casual assertions have been made in the application seeking condonation Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5838/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025 undefined of delay about the administrative delay, i.e. the time taken in seeking permission for filling of the present appeal.
3. However, on the submissions made by Ms. Hetal Patel, the learned AGP appearing for the State appellants, we proceeded to examine the merits of the case as well.
4. Pertinent is to note that the land-in-question was of the ownership of one Nilkantheshwar Mahadev Trust and one Shri Fatehsang Dabhai Vaghela was the tenant of the said land. The impugned order records that the original tenant namely Shri Fatehsang Dabhai Vaghela executed an agreement in favour of three persons, namely Shri Chhatrasang Jinabhai Rathod, Shri Mansang Jinabhai Rathod and Shri Musabhai Mansingbhai Rathod on 20.09.1963. Agricultural activities on the land-in-question were being carried out by the said three persons. The original tenant had passed away in the year 1965 and the persons in whose favour the agreement dated 20.09.1963 was executed had continued with the agricultural activities over the land-in-question.
5. In the interregnum, the proceedings under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act, 1948') came to be instituted and Shri Chhatrasang Jinabhai and others were declared as tenants of the land-in-question, and on payment of purchase price, certificate under Section 32M of the Tenancy Act, 1948 came to be issued in their favour on 04.01.1972. The permission to convert the land-in- question from restricted tenure land to the unrestricted tenure land for agricultural purposes has also been granted on the application filed by the persons in whose favour certificate under Section 32M Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5838/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025 undefined was issued. Shri Chhatrasang Jinabhai Rathod, later sold the land- in-question to three other persons vide registered sale deed dated 18.08.1975, whose names were recorded in the Revenue Record vide Mutation Entry No. 2746 dated 13.10.1975. The said purchasers had continued with the agricultural activities for almost 36 years without any hindrance.
6. The petitioner before the learned single Judge came to be inducted in the land-in-question vide registered sale deed dated 26.08.2011. However, the dispute arose when the petitioner had approached the revenue authorities for mutation of his name in the revenue records. The refusal to record the name of the petitioner was on the ground that the proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act, 1948 was pending against him. Pertinent is to record that the proceedings under Section 84C had been initiated at the instance of the heirs of the original tenant Shri Fatehsang Dabhai Vaghela. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had applied for joining as a party respondent and vide order dated 30.10.2012, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Vadodra had dropped the proceedings holding that there was no breach of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, 1948. The mutation Entry No. 10615 came to be posted reflecting the purchase of the property-in-question by the petitioner and the said entry is still continuing.
7. It is noted by the learned single Judge that the legal heirs of the original tenant, at whose instance, the proceedings under Section 84C was initiated, had further challenged the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the Mamlatdar before the Deputy Collector, Vadodara, who had allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back. Upon remand, the Mamlatdar reiterating that there was no Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5838/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025 undefined breach of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, 1948, had dropped the proceedings of 84C vide order dated 16.07.2018. The appeal filed by the applicants/heirs of the original tenant had further been allowed vide order dated 25.01.2021 passed by the Deputy Collector remanding the matter back.
8. In the remand proceedings, in the second round, the Mamlatdar & ALT directed the petitioner to pay the premium and regularise the earlier breach, more particularly since it appeared that the previous sale of the year 1975 was in favour of the non- agriculturists. The Mamlatdar & ALT applied the newly inserted provisions of Section 63AB to levy the penalty, which was duly paid by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 50,99,150/- on 10.06.2021. Resultantly, the remand case No. 4 of 2021 had been disposed of vide order dated 13.08.2021. Being dissatisfied with the said order, some of the heirs of the original tenant, namely Fatehsang Dabhai Vaghela, had again challenged the order dated 13.08.2021 by filling Tenancy Appeal No. 8 of 2022, wherein by order dated 05.08.022, the Deputy Collector had rejected the appeal. In a challenge before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Revision Application No. 19 of 2023 had been withdrawn vide order dated 20.04.2023.
9. It would, thus, appear that inspite of conclusion of the above proceedings initiated at the instance of the heirs of the original tenant, a fresh complaint was entertained by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara as regards the sale of the year 1975 on the ground that it was made to a non-agriculturist. The Tenancy Case No. 1 of 2023 had been registered, however, the said proceedings had been dropped by order dated 20.02.2023 taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner had paid the requisite premium for Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5838/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025 undefined regularisation. This order dated 20.02.2023 has been subjected to the administrative review/suo motu revision before the Deputy Collector.
10. It seems that after the order dated 20.02.2023 had been passed by the Mamlatdar dropping the Tenancy Case No. 1 of 2023, the petitioner preferred an application for converting the land-in- question from restricted tenure to un-restricted tenure and for payment of premium amount for the said purpose. Furthermore, an application seeking permission for use of the land-in-question for non-agricultural purposes had also been preferred. Both these applications have been consigned to record by the Collector, Vadodara vide impugned orders dated 27.06.2023 and 28.06.2023 on the ground that the review before the Deputy Collector against the order dated 20.04.2023 was pending. It is also noted by the learned single Judge that the Review Application has finally been decided by the Collector vide order dated 11.06.2024 wherein the Review Application had been directed to be struck off from the register as it was barred by principle of res judicata.
11. It seems that the revenue authorities were not satisfied even at this stage and in the interegnum, a show cause notice dated 06.03.2024 had been issued under Section 76A of the Tenancy Act, 1948 by the Deputy Collector, which was subjected to challenge in Special Civil Application No. 8100 of 2024. This Court did not entertain the said writ petition, but issued direction to the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Vadodara to decide and conclude the proceedings, which has led to passing of the final order dated 11.06.2024. Pertinent is to note that even the order dated 11.06.2024 was passed in favour of the petitioner.
Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5838/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025 undefined
12. The prayer made in the writ petition was that as a natural consequence of the conclusion of the abovenoted proceedings, specifically in light of the order dated 11.06.2024 of deciding the Review Application finally, it was incumbent upon the Collector, Vadodara to consider the N.A. applications filed by the petitioner, inasmuch as, the only objection against consideration of the aforesaid application was pendency of the revision/review.
13. Learned single Judge while noticing the above facts in the judgment impugned, has categorically recorded that after multiple rounds, the petitioner who had purchased the property in the year 2011 and was not part of the first transaction, had to bear the brunt of irregularity of the first transaction. In the remand case No.4 of 2021 on the payment made by the petitioner of the penalty as per the newly introduced Section 63AB on 10.06.2021, the breach, if any, in the transaction stood regularised. It is opined by the learned single Judge that though the order of dismissal of the remand case No. 4 of 2021 was subjected to challenge by the legal heirs of original tenant, but the said proceedings were also brought to their logical end, and ultimately had been decided in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, the State had accepted the amount of fine/penalty under the newly introduced Section 63AB and as such, any irregularity in the sale of the land in question at any previous stage, stood regularised.
14. Even otherwise, the grounds on which the NA applications were consigned to record vide order impugned dated 27.06.2023 and 28.06.2023 did not survive with the disposal of the administrative review/suo motu revision by the Deputy Collector being barred by res judicata.
Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5838/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025 undefined
15. All these reasonings given by the learned single Judge to issue directions contained in the judgment impugned based on the facts and circumstances of the present case, could not be disputed before us. Any contention of the State appellant about the illegality or irregularity in the previous sale by the original tenant or the subsequent transferees, would stand obliterated with the regularisation granted by the Mamlatdar and ALT in the remand case No. 4 of 2021. The petitioner had even paid penalty/fine, which was imposed applying Section 63AB of the Tenancy Act, 1948 and all irregularities in the previous transactions, thus, stood regularised.`
16. In these facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any merit in the challenge to the order of the learned single Judge, which is found to be justified in law from all the angles.
17. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Civil Applications stand disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) C.M. JOSHI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:42:53 IST 2025