Gujarat High Court
Naran Bhima Dangar vs State Of Gujarat on 20 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10707/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10707 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
-- √
=======================================================
NARAN BHIMA DANGAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR DIVYESH SEJPAL(1322) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 3.1,3.2,3.3
MR SIDDHARTH DESAI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,4,5
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 20/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By filing present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under
the provision of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Revenue Code" for short"), the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs, "(A) To issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:17:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10707/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined 27th July, 2016 passed by of Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. MVV/ HKP / Kutch / 48 / 2015 as also the order dated 07th February, 2014 passed by Collector, District Kutch in Appeal No. 54 / 2010 for the subject matter of the present case, in the interest of justice and equity;
(B) During the pendency, notice, admission and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay both the impugned orders dated 27th July, 2016 of respondent no. 1 (Annexure A) and the order dated 07th February, 2014 of respondent no. 4 (Annexure B) and further be pleased to direct the respondents not to disturb the petitioner's possession of the subject land and further restrain the respondents from interfering with the possession of the subject land from the petitioner, in the interest of justice;
(C) xxx xxx xxx;
(D) xxx xxx xxx;"
2. The facts of the case leading to filing of the present petition are as under, 2.1 The land bearing Survey No.984/108 (old Survey No.34) admeasuring 11 Acre 24 Guntah sitauted in Village : Anjar, Taluka :
Anjar, District : Kutch belongs to one Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:17:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10707/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined Bhikabhai Dhanabhai Harijan, who is allotted the said land by an order dated 20.05.1994 and Entry No.369 came to be mutated in the revenue record. It is to be noted that the land in question is new tenure land.
2.2 Thereafter, the said land owner, Bhikhabhai Harijan submitted an application to the authority with a request of conversion of land from new tenure to old tenure and accordingly, by an order dated 17.10.2005, the said land has been converted from new tenure to old tenure. However as per Condition No.3 of the said order, the record of the land should not be subjected to any kind of changes until the Deputy Collector gives the permanent order to give effect of conversion of land from new tenure to old tenure.
2.3 On 24.01.2006, the Deputy Collector passed an order of conversion of land into old tenure and pursuant thereto, Entry No.7099 came to be mutated in the revenue records pursuant to the aforesaid order on 18.03.2006.
2.4 On 19.04.2006, the petitioner entered into sale transaction with the original land owner, Bhikhabhai Harijan by way of execution of registered sale deed and pursuant to the said registered sale deed, Entry No.7128 came to be mutated in the revenue records.Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:17:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10707/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined 2.5 After the purchase of the land in question, the petitioner came to know about one mutation entry being Entry No.7110 dated 07.04.2006 on the strength of the registered sale deed dated 06.09.2005 and the said registered sale deed has been executed on the strength of the Power of Attorney executed by the original land owner in favour of the respondent no.2. However it is the specific case that the said power of attorney was forged and fabricated one.
2.6 Upon coming to know about the aforesaid Entry No.7110, the petitioner submitted his objection on the ground that the aforesaid sale deed is void ab initio, which culminated into Dispute Case No.66/2006, wherein Entry No.7128 mutated in favour of the petitioner came to be confirmed, whereas Entry No.7110 mutated on the basis of the registered sale deed based on power of attorney came to be cancelled.
2.7 Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no.2 preferred RTS Appeal No.24/2007 before the Deputy Collector, who upheld the order of the Mamlatdar.
2.8. Against the aforesaid order, the respondent no.2 approached the Collector by filing Appeal No.54/2010, however without properly considering the facts of the case, the Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:17:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10707/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined Collector allowed the said Appeal preferred by the respondent no.2 herein and thereby cancelled Entry No.7128 mutated in favour of the petitioner and also ordered to initiate proceeding under Section 79A of the Revenue Code for summary eviction with respect fo the land in question on the ground that the first transaction on the strength of the power of attorney is illegal and bound to be nulliied as at the time of said transaction, the land was new tenure land and no prior permission was obtained.
2.9. Thereafter, Regular Civil Suit No.213/2015 was preferred by the respondent no.2 for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 19.04.2006 executed in favour of the petitioner. Whereas Regular Civil Suit No.64/2016 was also preferred by the petitioner against the respondent nos.2 and 3 for cancellation of said deed executed between them.
2.10 However pending suit, amicable settlement was arrived at, therefore, Regular Civil Suit No.213/2015 of the respondent no.2 was withdrawn by him and thus, sale deed in favour of the petitioner has been confirmed. On the other hand, compromise was not accepted by the court concerned in the suit preferred by the petitioner and it has been rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC.
Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:17:56 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10707/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined 2.11 Against which, First Appeal No.2518/2017 has been preferred before this Hon'ble Court challenging the said order and on the strength of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the said First Appeal has been allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court by an order dated 05.07.2022.
2.12 Against the order passed by the Collector, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No.HKP/ MVV/ KUTCH/48/2015 before the respondent - SSRD, however there also, the said Revision Application came to be rejected, which led the petitioner to file present petition.
3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Divyesh Sejpal for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Siddharth Desai for the respondents - State authorities.
4. Learned advocate, Mr. Sejpal referred to the documents produced on record and submitted that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the land in question on payment of sale consideration by executing registered sale deed, therefore, on the strength of the registered sale deed executed in his favour, entry ought to have been mutated in the revenue record, however, it has been wrongly cancelled by the respondent - Collector without proper application of mind. He submitted that the land in question was originally belonging to one Bhikhabhai Harijan, which was new tenure land and Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:17:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10707/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined Entry No.369 came to bem utated in his favour. He submitted that subsequently, the said land was converted into old tenure land from new tenure land by an order dated 17.10.2005 and Entry No.7099 came to be mutated in the revenue records on 18.03.2006 and after its conversion, the petitioner entered into sale transaction with the original land owner for the land in question by executing registered sale deed on 19.04.2006 and pursuant to the registered sale deed, Entry No.7128 came to be mutated in the revenue record. He submitted that after the purchase of the land, the petitioner came to know about the transaction took place between the original land owner and one Pravinbhai Gadhvi i.e. the respondent no.2 herein, therefore, he raised objected before the respondent - Mamlatdar and pursuant thereto, Dispute Case No.66/2006 was registered, wherein after hearing the parties concerned, Entry No.7128 mutated in favour of the petitioner has been approved and certified, whereas Entry No.7028 mutated in favour of the respondent no.2 has been cancelled and the said order has also been upheld by the respondent - Deputy Collector in RTS Appeal No.24/2007 preferred by the respondent no.2 herein. He further submitted that in fact, against those orders, the respondent no.2 approached the respondent - Collector by filing Appeal No.54/2010, where without proper application of mind, the respondent - Collector set aside Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:17:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10707/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined aforesaid both orders and thereby cancelled Entry No.7128 mutated in favour of the petitioner and also ordered to initiate proceeding under Section 79A of the Revenue Code for summary eviction with respect fo the land in question on the ground that the first transaction on the strength of the power of attorney is illegal and bound to be nulliied as at the time of said transaction, the land was new tenure land and no prior permission was obtained, against which, Revision Application was preferred before the respondent - SSRD, which also came to be rejected, therefore, those orders have been assailed before this Hon'ble Court by filing present petition.
5. Learned advocate, Mr. Sejpal reiterating the facts of the case submitted that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser and he has entered into sale transaction with the original land owner after the conversion of the land, therefore, there is no breach and/or there was no requirement of any prior permission to be obtained from the competent authority. He submitted that in fact, the transaction entered into between the original land owner and the respondent no.2 was in contravention of the provision of the Revenue Code, therefore, the said transaction ought to have been declared as null and void, which the respondent - Mamlatdar and the respondent - Deputy Collector had done but the said aspect has not been considered by the respondent - Collector and the respondent - SSRD.
Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:17:56 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10707/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined He further submitted that as stated above, two different suits have been preferred, one by the petitioner and one by the respondent no.2 herein against each other, wherein on the strength of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the suit preferred by the respondent no.2 herein was withdrawn, whereas the suit preferred by the petitioner was dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, against which, First Appeal No.2518/2017 was preferred, which was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court, therefore, the sale transaction between the original land owner and the respondent no.2 herein has been declared as cancelled. He, therefore, submitted that when the sale transaction between the original land owner and the respondent no.2 herein, which was entered into before conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure, has been declared as cancelled, in that event, there is no question of any breach as alleged by the revenue authorities, therefore, the entry mutated in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the registered sale deed is required to be approved and certified. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders against the provisions of law and same are based on wrong premise, therefore, those orders are required to be quashed and set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Desai has opposed the present petition contending that there is no error committed by the respondent Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:17:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10707/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined authorities while passing impugned orders, therefore, same do not require any interference at the hands of this Hon'ble Court. He submitted that first sale transaction had taken place in the year 2005, that too, before conversion of the land and, thereafter, the petitioner entered into sale transaction but as the first transaction had taken place before conversion of the land and/or no prior permission was obtained from the competent authority, the entries mutated in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled and it is ordered to initiate proceeding under Section 79A of the Revenue Code for summary eviction with respect fo the land, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no proper application of mind and/or any error committed by the authority. He, therefore, submitted that considering the facts of the case and the reasons assigned by the authorities while passing impugned orders, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for, therefore, the present petition may be rejected.
7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material available on record, it is found out that the land in question was granted to one Bhikhabhai Harijan, which was new tenure land and Entry No.369 came to be mutated in the revenue record and, thereafter, he was possessing the land and, thereafter in the year 2005, the said land was converted into old tenure land from new tenure land on 24.01.2006 Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:17:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10707/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined and, thereafter, the petitioner entered into sale transaction by way of executing registered sale deed on 19.04.2006 and Entry No.7128 was mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the registered sale deed, however subsequent, the petitioner came to know about Entry No.7110 mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the sale transaction between the original land owner and the respondent no.2 herein, therefore, objection was raised by the petitioner, which culminated into Dispute Case No.66/2006, wherein after hearing the parties, Entry No.7128 was approved and certified, whereas Entry No.7110 was cancelled, against which, the respondent no.2 approached the respondent - Deputy Collector, who uphold the order of the respondent
- Mamlatdar, however, those orders have been set aside by the respondent - Collector in the Appeal preferred by the respondent no.2 herein and ordered to initiate proceedings under Section 79A of the Revenue Code and the said order has been upheld by the respondent - SSRD in the Revision Application preferred by the petitioner. However, it is required to be noted that pending those proceedings, as stated above, two different suits have been preferred, one by the petitioner and one by the respondent no.2, however pending those suits, amicable settlement has been arrived at, therefore, the respondent no.2 had withdrawn his suit but the suit preferred by the petitioner had been dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:17:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10707/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined against which, First Appeal No.2518/2017 preferred by the petitioner came to be allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court on the strength of the settlement. Over and above that, it is also found out from the record that earlier transaction had taken place on the basis of the power of attorney, however it is the specific case of the original owner that the said power of attorney was forged one and on the basis of which, the sale transaction had taken place, therefore, the said transaction cannot consider as genuine one.
8. Thus in view of the above facts of the case, it is clear that the sale transaction taken place in the year 2005 between the original land owner and the respondent no.2 herein has been declared as cancelled, therefore, it cannot be said that the transaction taken place between the petitioner and the original land owner is on contravention of the provision of the Revenue Code and the entry mutated in favour of the petitioner is required to be cancelled. Therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have mutated the entry in the revenue record in favour of the petitioner on the strength of the registered sale deed
9. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the petitioner entered into sale transaction with the original land owner by way of executing registered sale deed after the conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure, therefore, there was no Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:17:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10707/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined requirement of any prior permission from the competent authority, therefore, order directing the authority to initiate proceeding under Section 79A of the Revenue Code cannot be sustained and confirmed by the respondent - SSRD deserve to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
10. In the result, the present petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 27th July, 2016 passed by of Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. MVV/ HKP / Kutch / 48 / 2015 as also the order dated 07th February, 2014 passed by Collector, District Kutch in Appeal No. 54 / 2010 are hereby quashed and set aside. The concerned revenue authority is hereby directed to mutate Entry No.7128 in the revenue record in favour of the petitioner pursuant to registered sale deed executed in his favour. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:17:56 IST 2025