Gujarat High Court
Bachubhai Bababhai Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 16 June, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 331 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 687 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 331 of 2025
==========================================================
BACHUBHAI BABABHAI CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS TRUSHA PATEL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MR.D K.PUJ(3836) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 16/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Ms. Trusha Patel, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.K. Puj, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant does not propose to file any rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.5.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of the present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant - original petitioner seeks for quashing and setting Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:02:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined aside of the communication dated 29.10.2024 issued by the Collector asking the petitioner to pay premium with respect to the land in question.
3. At the outset, we may record that the communication dated 29.10.2024 is bereft of reasoning and only refers to a communication dated 17.07.2020 of the Additional Collector (Vigilance), Gandhinagar asking the Collector to levy premium over the land in question.
4. We have noted in the detailed order dated 28.04.2025 that the communication dated 17.07.2020 at Page-55 of the paper-book indicates that it was addressed by the Additional Collector (Vigilance), Revenue Department with reference to the communication dated 21.12.2018 of the Collector, Gandhinagar, wherein some directions were issued to levy premium with respect to the land in question, which is revenue survey no.117. It was further noted that the communication dated 21.12.2018, reference of which is found in the letter dated 17.07.2020 written by the Additional Collector (Vigilance), Revenue Department addressed to the Collector, was another internal communication between the Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:02:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined Officers.
5. Be that as it may, a show-cause notice dated 09.09.2021 has been issued to the petitioner, which simply records that the petitioner was required to appear in the office of the Collector, Gandhinagar on 20.09.2021 for making an inquiry with respect to the land in question, which has been initiated on the complaint of a third party.
6. Under the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2025, an affidavit-in-reply, dated 06.06.2025 has been filed on behalf of the District Collector, Gandhinagar. The chronological details with respect to the land in question in survey/ block no.117, admeasuring 7789 square meters of Village Chiloda, Taluka & District Gandhinagar, are stated in paragraph-6 [6.1 to 6.18] of the affidavit. It is stated in the aforesaid paragraphs that the permission for non-agricultural use of the land in question was granted in favour of the appellant on 16.07.2012 by considering the land in question as old tenure land and as such, only conversion charges were levied. However, on a complaint filed by a third person dated 20.11.2013 and 11.06.2014, wherein the issue with respect to Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:02:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined the status of the appellant was raised, an inquiry was made with regard to the sale transaction. It is stated in paragraph- 6.4 of the affidavit-in-reply that for another survey no.90, also owned by the appellant herein, an inquiry was initiated suo moto about the status of the appellant, in the revision against the order dated 01.05.1989 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, wherein the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT was confirmed and the notice issued under Section-84C of the Tenancy Act was withdrawn.
7. At this stage, it is submitted by Ms. Trusha Patel, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that with respect to the land in question namely, survey no.117, also 84C proceedings were dropped by the Mamlatdar and ALT vide order dated 07.05.1985 and the suo moto revision was decided upholding the order of Mamlatdar on 18.11.1992.
8. The result is that the proceedings initiated against the appellant herein under Section-84C were dropped as early as in the year 1992. However, the affidavit-in-reply further refers to the communications dated 01.11.2014; 24.03.2015; 03.11.2015; 23.12.2015; 11.08.2016; 13.12.2017; 03.10.2018 Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:02:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined and 03.07.2019 between the Collector; Deputy Collector; Mamlatdar & ALT, Gandhinagar and the Additional Secretary (Vigilance), Revenue Department, Gandhinagar and the Additional Collector (Vigilance Cell), Secretariat, Gandhinagar.
9. Referring to the said communications, it is stated in paragraph-6.7 that there are four aspects for the land in question namely:- (a) That the name of original tenants were mutated as occupiers of the land in question vide mutation entry no.1067, which is dated 27.08.1962. The contention is that pursuant to the said entry, the land in question is to be considered as restricted tenure land. The second aspect is with respect to the sale-deed dated 16.09.1967 executed by the original tenants with respect to which the mutation entry no.1309 was made on 09.02.1969. It is also stated in paragraph-6.7(b) that the said mutation entry was certified on 06.04.1969 and as per the revenue records, the land in question [survey no.117] has been shown as 'old tenure land'. The contention is that the transaction of the year 1967 was contrary to the provisions of Section-64, inasmuch as, premium was required to be paid at the time of sale. It is Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:02:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined further contended that though there were subsequent sale- deeds with respect to the land in question, but no inquiry was conducted as to whether the title of the land in question was clear or not.
10. Lastly, it is sought to be submitted that while passing the order dated 16.07.2012 granting permission for non- agricultural use for the land in question, no such inquiry was made on the above noted three aspects. The Additional Collector (Vigilance Cell), Gandhinagar raised these queries in the letter dated 03.11.2015 addressed to the Collector, Gandhinagar. It is further sought to be stated therein that the Mamlatdar & ALT, Gandhinagar replying to the aforesaid queries vide communication dated 11.08.2016 addressed to the Deputy Collector, (Land Reforms) Appeal, Gandhingar, had stated that the names of original tenants were mutated as occupiers of the land in question vide mutation entry no.1067 dated 27.08.1962, as per the order passed in the Tenancy Case and the tenants were declared as persons in possession of the land in question with the entry made in form 7/12 in that regard, however, the purchase price of the land was not determined. After saying so, it is further stated in the same Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:02:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined paragraph-6.8(a) that the land is shown as 'old tenure land' in form 7/12 and the documents related to revenue entry no.1067 dated 27.08.1962 were sought from the Talati, but the same are not traceable.
11. From the above statement of facts noted from the affidavit-in-reply, it is difficult to accept as to how the Mamlatdar & ALT has reached at the conclusion that the purchase price of the land was not determined though the revenue entry dated 27.08.1962 had been made showing the tenants as occupiers being the persons in possession of the land in question. There is complete silence of any proceedings having been undertaken against the tenants in accordance with the provisions of Section-32(P) of the Gujarat Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [for short referred to as 'the Tenancy Act'], which provides for the consequences of non- payment of purchase price by the tenant, determined in accordance with the provisions of Section-32 and 32(G).
12. We may further note that even the averments are not to the effect that the tenants had not paid the purchase price rather it is stated that the purchase price of the land was not Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:02:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined determined, which was the duty and responsibility of the tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Section-32(G) of the Act, 1948. The vague assertion made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector that the purchase price was not determined, in view of the admission that the record pertaining to the revenue entry no.1067 dated 27.08.1962 is not available, cannot be accepted.
13. The contention of Ms. Hetal Patel, learned AGP appearing for the State respondent that the tenants were simply occupiers of the land in question and they did not became owners by virtue of Section-32 of the Tenancy Act, 1948 in view of revenue entry no.1067 dated 27.08.1962, is liable to be turned down, being without any basis.
14. In absence of correct and complete records placed before the Collector by the Mamlatdar & ALT, in the inquiry initiated by him based on the letter of the Additional Collector (Vigilance), Gandhinagar it was not permitted for the Collector to form any opinion about the status of the original tenants, whose names were recorded in the revenue record as early as on 27.08.1962 as tenants in possession of the land in Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:02:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined question.
15. With regard to the sale dated 16.09.1967, executed by the original tenants/ occupiers of the land in question, as noted herein before, the entry no.1309 was certified on 06.04.1969. As per the procedure prescribed under Section- 135(d) of the Land Revenue Code, for certification of the revenue entries, an inquiry is required to be made by the Competent Authority/ Officer so as to satisfy itself about the validity of the sale transaction after issuing due notice to all concerned. There is no order attaching any illegality to the entry no.1309 dated 09.02.1969 which was certified on 06.04.1969, based on the sale-deed dated 16.09.1967.
16. The further contention made by the Collector in his affidavit-in-reply that the land in question is to be considered as a restricted tenure land based on the opinion drawn by the Mamlatdar & ALT in the communication dated 11.08.2016 is baseless. No proceedings whatsoever has been initiated with respect to the sale-deed dated 16.09.1967.
17. We may further record that the appellant herein is the Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:02:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined purchaser of the land in question vide sale-deed executed on 11.10.1984 and the revenue entry in this regard was recorded on 12.10.1984. The entry no.1661, dated 12.10.1984 has further been certified after verification of the status of the appellant as agriculturist by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Gandhinagar, which fact is stated by the Mamlatdar & ALT in his communication dated 11.08.2016, [reference to Paragraph-6.8(c) of the affidavit-in-reply of the Collector].
18. From the above noted facts, it is evident that the inquiry initiated by the Collector based on the complaint made by a third person, has reached at the conclusion of forming an opinion with regard to invalidity of the sale-deed dated 16.09.1967, without any formal order passed in any proceedings conducted by any of the revenue authorities. The affidavit-in-reply filed by the Collector, Gandhinagar, as noted hereinabove, refers to various inter-departmental communications, but no order passed in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act, 1948. The contention that the status of the land in question as an 'old tenure land' was wrongly recorded in the revenue records and the order of conversion of the land in question dated 16.07.2012 for non- Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:02:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined agricultural purposes was required to be revisited, is, thus, without any basis.
19. The submission made by Ms. Hetal Patel, learned AGP appearing for the State respondent based on the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply to substantiate the communication dated 29.10.2024, which is a non-speaking order, cannot be appreciated.
20. It is settled law that the validity of the order passed by the quasi judicial authority is to be seen from the contents of the order itself. Any averments made in the affidavit-in-reply cannot be taken into consideration to add substance or validity to the order passed by the Collector. Reference be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in [1978] 2 SCR 272 : 1978 (1) SCC 405.
21. Having noted the above, we find that as there has been no adjudication by any of the revenue authorities on the issues raised before us and the entire matter proceeded on the internal communications between the revenue authorities, the Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:02:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined Collector had no jurisdiction to ask for the premium from the petitioner by sending the communication dated 29.10.2024.
22. The challenge to the communication dated 29.10.2024 sent by the Collector asking premium from the petitioner is found to be substantiated from the details noted hereinabove.
23. We may note that the learned Single Judge has committed an error of law in dismissing the writ petition treating the communication dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Collector as an order passed under Section-64 of the Tenancy Act, recording that according to the notice, the land being covered under the restriction of Section-43 of the Gujarat Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act, adequate opportunity of hearing would be provided to the petitioner, in case a detailed representation is made.
24. The order of the learned Single Judge simply records that the petitioner has an alternative and effective remedy of challenging the order before the appropriate authority in accordance with law, though as on date, there is no order on record. The communication dated 29.10.2024, which was Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:02:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined challenged before the writ court, as noted hereinabove, cannot be treated to be a notice based on any decision of the revenue authorities, asking for the premium applying the provisions of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. All these aspects of the matter could not be looked into by the learned Single Judge as the writ-petition was dismissed at the admission stage itself, without calling for the response of the respondents.
25. For the aforesaid, while setting aside the judgment and order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, the communication dated 29.10.2024 issued by the Collector based on the communication dated 17.07.2020 of the Collector (Vigilance), Gandhinagar, is hereby quashed. The appeal as well as the writ petition, both stand allowed.
Consequential entry made in the revenue records as entry no.6428, dated 12.09.2024 is liable to be expunged. The revenue authorities are required to make necessary correction in the revenue records in compliance of this order. Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:02:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined Consequently, the connected Civil Application stands disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:02:47 IST 2025