Gujarat High Court
Piyushkumar Ramjibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 4 November, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 623 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
PIYUSHKUMAR RAMJIBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. R.D.KINARIWALA(6146) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DEVANSHIBA RANA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 04/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Devanshiba Rana, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner herein has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 07.11.2023 whereby, the application of the petitioner under Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 20:58:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined Section 65A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, for revised NA for multi-purpose, stands rejected, and has prayed for the following reliefs:
"A. Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this petition;
B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.11.2023 and consequently order dated 02.09.2023, passed by the respondent No.2 more particularly, produced at Annexure-A Collectively to this petition and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to decide & allow the applications filed by petitioner under section 65A of the Land Revenue Code;
C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 07.11.2023 and consequently order dated 02.09.2023, passed by the respondent No.2 more particularly, produced at Annexure-A Collectively to this petition;
D. Be pleased to grant any other relief/s as may deem fit, proper, in the interest of justice."
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus:
3.1 The dispute is with respect to the Survey No.195/3/A/1 (old survey No.288) of Village : Bhesthan, Taluka : Majura, District : Surat. It is the case of the petitioner that village :
Bhesthan was Inami village and Sureshchandra Store etc. were the Inamdars. The predecessors of the petitioner were cultivating the land.
3.2 The petitioner's predecessors and other 27 tenants approached the learned Assistant Collector, Surat, being Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 20:58:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined aggrieved by the increase in rent by the Inamdar wherein, by order dated 04.10.1956, name of the petitioner's predecessor was mutated in the revenue record as 'protected tenant' namely, Shri Hirabhai Narsinhbhai. The petitioner's predecessor showed readiness and willingness to purchase the land-in-question from the Inamdar in view thereof, proceedings being Tenancy Case No.768/1965 were initiated. The certificate of sale under Section 32M of the Tenancy Act came to be issued in favour of the petitioner's predecessor i.e. Shri Hirabhai Narsinhbhai upon payment of Rs.268.86 to the owner, upon recording restriction under Section 43(1)(b) of the Tenancy Act by way of entry No.359.
3.3 Being aggrieved by the restriction imposed in the certificate issued under Section 32M of the Tenancy Act, the predecessor of petitioner approached the competent authority to remove the said restriction, which came to be accepted and the restriction was removed by order dated 30.12.1988, which has attained finality. The predecessor of the petitioner also filed Tenancy Case No.70(O)/13/91 before the Court of learned Incharge Mamlatdar & ALT (Tenancy) Choryasi Prant at Surat, which was allowed by order dated 27.08.1991 and attained Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 20:58:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined finality in favour of the petitioner's predecessor. 3.4 The said orders were challenged by the respondent -
State before the learned GRT as also, by filing Special Civil Application and Special Leave Petition however, the respondent-State failed in the aforesaid proceedings. In view thereof, the order dated 27.08.1991 attained finality. 3.5 The petitioner thereafter, preferred an application under Section 65 of the Code for Non-Agricultural (NA) use permission, which came to be granted by order dated 13.12.2017. The same has attained finality. 3.6 The petitioner purchased the remaining parcel of land by registered sale deed and the entry to the said effect was mutated in the revenue record as Entry No.3429, dated 04.05.2022. The said entry was objected by original seller however, the said objection was rejected and the entry was certified in favour of the petitioner certified on 23.06.2025. 3.7 The petitioner thereafter, preferred an application for revised NA for multi-purpose, which came to be rejected on the ground that, there is a restriction under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and that, proceedings are pending before the Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 20:58:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined competent authority.
4. Mr. R.D. Kinariwala, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner relied on the record produced in the present petition and submitted that both the objections raised by the respondent No.2 are erroneous in view of the fact that, the restriction under Section 43 of the Act, stand cured as back as in the year 1988 and that, entry in the name of the petitioner is certified and has attained finality on 23.06.2025. In view thereof, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside, the same being contrary to the record.
5. Ms. Devanshiba Rana, learned AGP appearing for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the aforesaid factual position.
6. Having heard the learned advocate and learned AGP appearing for the respective parties, the facts, as referred to herein above, are not in dispute. This Court has perused the documents produced on record. From the record, it emerges that the certificate issued under Section 32M of the Tenancy Act, wherein, the restriction under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act was imposed by the competent authority, was subject Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 20:58:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined matter of challenge by the predecessor of the petitioner and the said restriction is removed by the order dated 30.12.1988 and the same has attained finality. It also emerges that the entry No.3429 is also certified on 23.06.2025 and the objections raised by the original seller are rejected. 6.1 Further, the petitioner is already in receipt of permission for Non-Agriculture use under Section 65 of the Code by order dated 13.12.2017, duly produced at page 111 to the petition, having attained finality. The bar under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act in view of above, is even otherwise not applicable to a Non-Agriculture land.
7. It is apposite to refer to paragraph 17 of the order dated 14.12.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.6737 of 2016, which reads thus:
"17. I fail to understand why the authorities are insisting for the payment of additional premium on the premise that the land is now sought to be used for commercial purpose and not residential purpose. The day on which the N.A. permission came to be granted, the land seized to be agriculture land and, therefore, there is no question of now reverting to the provisions of the Tenancy Act for the purpose of charging additional premium. At the most, the authorities are entitled to recover the conversion charges, i.e. from residential purpose to commercial purpose. But, in any case, the authorities are not justified in asking the subsequent purchasers to pay additional premium as they intend to put the land for commercial use. This is exactly what the Tribunal has observed in its order, and in my view, rightly so."
7.1 It is also apposite to refer to paragraph 2 of the order Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 20:58:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined dated 22.08.2023, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.9 of 2022, which reads thus:
"2. Having heard learned AGP appearing for the State appellants and learned counsel for the respondents, suffice it to note that with the grant of permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, the land in question goes out of the purview of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as it would not fall within the meaning of "land" under Section 2(8) of the said Act. The subsequent application moved by the writ petitioner for conversion of the land in question which was declared as non-agricultural land in the year 2006 under the order passed by the District Development Officer, has to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 67(A) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879."
8. For the reasons as recorded herein above:
(a) The impugned order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside.
(b) The petitioner is at liberty to apply afresh for NA permission for multi-purpose wherein, the petitioner herein is in receipt of NA permission and the same be decided by the respondent authority in accordance with law and the position of law, as referred to herein above; within the prescribed statutory period.
9. The present petition is allowed, accordingly. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) NEHA Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 20:58:27 IST 2025