Gujarat High Court
Suthar Nyalchand Mohanji vs State Of Gujarat on 13 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8767 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SUTHAR NYALCHAND MOHANJI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DENISHKUMAR B MORAKHIA(8968) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MR N R DESAI(6504) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4.3,6,7.1,7.2,7.3,7.4
MR. R.D.KINARIWALA(6146) for the Respondent(s) No. 5.1,5.2,5.3,5.4
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 4.1,4.2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 13/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. The learned advocates for the respective parties waives service of notice of rule for the respective respondents.
3. The factual matrix in the present case is that the petitioners are the purchasers of the land bearing Survey No.319 of Village : Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:29:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined Tharad. By way of registered sale-deed dated 07.04.1986, the learned Deputy Collector, Tharad initiated proceedings for breach of condition by instituting Case No.3 of 1994. By the order dated 19.03.1997, the learned Deputy Collector, Tharad held that the subject land in question was purchased without prior permission of the Competent Authority and therefore, there was a breach of condition. Accordingly, the land was ordered to be vested in the State Government under Section 79(A) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.
3.1. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Appeal No.36 of 1997 before the Collector, Banaskantha, who, by order dated 04.01.2000, was pleased to confirm the order passed by the learned Deputy Collector, Tharad. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred Revision Application No. 470 of 2005 before the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. By impugned order dated 07.04.2015, the learned Tribunal has quashed and set aside the orders passed by the learned Deputy Collector as well as the learned Collector and directed that the Revenue Authorities shall take into consideration the sale-deed dated 07.04.1986 and other relevant material on record and thereafter convert the said land Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined into old tenure land by assessing and recovering an appropriate premium. Accordingly, the Revision Application came to be disposed of by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. 3.2. Aggrieved by the direction for assessment and payment of premium for conversion of the land, the petitioners herein preferred Special Civil Application No.10518 of 2015 in this Court. By order dated 30.06.2015, this Court disposed of the writ petition on the ground that the Collector, Banaskantha, while deciding the Revision Application, shall take into consideration the copy of the Revenue Register for the year 1954-1955 and the Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970 while taking decision afresh. That by order dated 09.02.2016, the learned Collector in the remand proceedings held that the subject land has to be considered as a new tenure land and the assessment of premium and payment of the same is mandatory in the present case.
Further, it was held that Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970 was not applicable in the present case. 3.3. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Revision Application No.38 of 2016 before the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined Department. By impugned order dated 31.01.2017, the Revision Application of the petitioners came to be rejected. 3.4. Aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present Special Civil Application.
4. The learned counsel, Mr.Hriday Buch, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in the present case, the subject land in question was held by the predecessor-in title of the petitioners - Suthar Natha Ramsi prior to the year 1950. By Mutation Entry No.387, the name of said Suthar Natha Ramsi came to be mutated in respect of the subject land in question under ek sali "on payment of occupancy price in terms of the Government Resolution dated 28.07.1955". The said Suthar Natha Ramsi was holding and cultivating the subject land in question till 07.04.1986, when the petitioners purchased the same. 4.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thereafter, the petitioners applied for non-agricultural use permission to the Deputy Collector, Tharad in the year 1991, which came to be rejected by order dated 26.08.1991. Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:29:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined 4.2. It is submitted that in appeal to the Collector, by order dated dated 20.04.1993, the learned Collector, Banaskantha was pleased to remand the application of the petitioners back to the Deputy Collector for fresh consideration. The learned Deputy Collector held that the land in question was of new tenure and impartible nature. Thereafter, the learned Deputy Collector, Tharad initiated proceedings for breach of conditions, observing that the sale transaction in favour of the petitioners was in breach since no prior permission was sought before transferring the land in question.
4.3. The learned counsel submits that after the remand by this Court vide order dated 30.06.2015 in Special Civil Application No.10518 of 2015, the learned Collector as well as the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department have erred in refusing to grant the benefit of Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970. 4.4. The learned counsel submits that the subject land cannot be treated as new tenure land on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970. He submits that the Government Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined Resolution dated 24.11.1970 pertains to those lands and land holders, who were holding such lands of the State Government prior to the amalgamation of the provinces into state of Gujarat. The State Government has directed that such lands shall be converted to old tenure land w.e.f. 01.11.1970 without taking any premium. It was further directed that such entries shall state the land to be old tenure without any restrictions and it was incumbent upon the Talati to make such endorsement in the revenue records.
4.5. The learned counsel submits that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners - Suthar Natha Ramsi was cultivating the land in question prior to the Mutation Entry of his name in the revenue records. He submits that the details of the Revenue register for the year 1954-1955 as well as the Mutation Entry No.160 would entitle the petitioners to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970 and then lands have been treated to be as old tenure.
4.6. The learned counsel submits that in the case of similarly situated persons, the Revenue Authorities have granted the Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined benefit of Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970 and then lands have been treated to be as old tenure.
4.7. The learned counsel submits that the Revenue Authorities have not considered the cases of the similarly situated persons. He submits that a perusal of the Hakkpatrak shows that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners was allotted the Survey No.319 on a yearly basis (ek sali), by Mutation Entry No.160, the promulgation in respect of the same is also granted. 4.8. The learned counsel submits that one Sipai Gulmohammad Bhikhu was also granted Survey No.43 by Mutation Entry No.387 dated 01.03.1956 as per the same Revenue Register records. 4.9. The learned counsel submits that thereafter, by Mutation Entry No.541 dated 15.02.1964, the name of the petitioners came to be confirmed as holders of the land on payment of amount 24 times the actual amount of assessed revenue. He submits that thereafter, the State Government has issued Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970 to treat such lands as of old tenure. 4.10. The learned counsel submits that the said Sipai Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined Gulmohammad Bhikhu also sold his land to another person viz. Vaghela Kishansingh Balwantsingh. The learned Deputy Collector by order dated 21.09.2022 in Appeal Case No.4 of 2022 was pleased to hold that the said purchaser was entitled to the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970 and other standing orders.
4.11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are also similarly placed. The petitioners have relied upon this order during the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities. However, the petitioner's lands have been still held to be of new tenure. He, therefore, submits that looking into the Revenue Records as well as the Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970, the subject land purchased by the petitioners was of old tenure and hence, not required to be assessed for any premium. He submits that subject land is of old tenure and therefore, the present Special Civil Application be allowed.
5. Per contra, the learned AGP Ms. Nidhi Vyas appearing for the respondents submits that the order passed by the learned Collector, Banaskantha as well as the impugned order passed by Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department are in accordance with the Government Resolutions. She submits that after taking into consideration all the revenue records and the Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970, the subject land cannot be said to be of old tenure. She submits that the subject land was allotted to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners on 28.07.1955 without any payment towards occupancy on the basis that the land was to be considered as of new tenure and impartible nature. She submits that the benefit of Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970 can be granted only to those lands which are granted without any conditions. In the present case, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners was granted land with condition of payment of 24 times of the amount of revenue as assessed and therefore, the same has to be treated as of new tenure and impartible nature. She submits that before transferring the subject land, the petitioners ought to have obtained prior permission from the Deputy Collector. In the present case, such permission was never obtained and therefore, the Revenue Authorities have rightly initiated proceedings for breach of conditions and appropriate orders have also been passed. She submits that the impugned orders have been passed Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined after taking into consideration all the revenue records and the applicable Government Resolutions. She, therefore, submits that the Special Civil Application be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions and perused the documents on record. 6.2. The record in the present case reveals that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners was immigrant from Pakistan during the partition period. The said Suthar Natha Ramsi was holding the subject land in the Tharad State. Thereafter, he was granted the subject land in year 1956 by Mutation Entry No.160 upon amalgamation of Tharad State into State of Gujarat. The said Mutation Entry states that Suthar Natha Ramsi was in possession of the Survey No.319 on yearly (ek sali) basis since long and during the existence of Tharad State. Accordingly, his name was entered into revenue records vide the said Mutation Entry. This Mutation Entry No.160 also came to be confirmed in the promulgation. The said Suthar Natha Ramsi held and cultivated the land in question till the petitioners purchased the subject land by registered sale-deed dated 07.04.1986. The Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined said Suthar Natha Ramsi was holding and cultivating the subject land for more than 40 years. Further, by Mutation Entry No.541 dated 15.02.1964, the said Suthar Natha Ramsi was allotted the subject land on payment of 24 times of the amount of revenue assessed, which was also paid in the year 1975. The petitioners herein claim that the owners of land bearing Survey No.6 and Survey Nos.13/31 situated in the same village : Abhepura and allotted the said lands by following the same procedure as in case of the Suthar Natha Ramsi had sought benefits of the Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970. The Deputy Collector, Tharad forwarded his positive opinion to the Collector, Banaskantha that the said landowners therein ought to be granted benefit of Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970. The Collector, Banaskantha, thereafter, sent the said proposal to the State Government. By communication dated 17.03.2023, the State Government directed the Collector, Banskantha to pass an order granting the benefits of Government Resolution dated 24.11.2017. Accordingly, the Collector, Banaskantha has passed an order on 29.04.2023 in favour of the said landowners of Survey Nos.6 and 13/31 at Village : Abhepura considering the Lands bearing Survey Nos.6 and 30/31 (New Survey Nos.114 and Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined
115) as old tenure lands. A perusal of the revenue records shows that these landowners were granted the lands on the same terms and conditions as the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners herein i.e. Suthar Natha Ramsi.
6.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the order passed by the learned Deputy Collector, Tharad in Appeal Case No.4 of 2022 dated 21.09.2022, which has been passed in respect of old Survey No.43 at Tharad, which was allotted to Sipai Gulmohammad Bhikhu and the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners i.e. Suthar Natha Ramsi on similar terms and conditions.
6.4. The learned AGP, Ms.Vyas has tried to distinguish the allotment to Suthar Natha Ramsi and Sipai Gulmohammad Bhikhu, submitting that Suthar Natha Ramsi was allotted land on payment of revenue whereas Sipai Gulmohammad Bhikhu was allotted land without such conditions. The said submission cannot be accepted since the revenue records show that the said Sipai Gulmohammad Bhikhu and the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners- late Suthar Natha Ramsi are similarly situated, their Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined names and land allotment find mention in the same revenue record register for the year 1954-1955. Both of them were occupying and cultivating the said land since the existence of Tharad State and before the merger of the provincial State and both were granted lands by the Revenue Authorities on similar terms and conditions.
6.5. Further a perusal of the Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970, shows that the same pertains to conversion of tenure of the lands which have been incorporated in the Gujarat State from the erstwhile Mumbai State and merger of other small States. The said Government Resolution states that taking into consideration the long length of occupancy, such kinds of lands shall be converted from new tenure to old tenure without charging of any premium. Such conversion shall be done suo motu by the Talati in respect of the lands coming within their jurisdictions. As observed hereinabove, it is an admitted position that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners - Suthar Natha Ramsi was in long occupation of the land since the existence of Tharad State and thereafter, upon merger in the State of Gujarat, he was held to be in occupancy and allotted the same land by the Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined State Government by relevant mutation entries in his favour in the revenue records. Thereafter, he has held said agricultural land till the year 1986 when the petitioners purchased the subject land by registered sale-deed dated 07.04.1986. 6.6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons enumerated in the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Collector, Tharad in Appeal Case No.4 of 2022 in the case of similarly situated person are applicable to the subject land purchased by the petitioners and the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970. The predecessor-in-title of the petitioners was in occupation of the subject land prior to the merger of Tharad State into the State of Gujarat. Thereafter, he was in occupation of the subject land by Mutation Entry No.160 in the revenue register in the year 1955-1956, which was duly certified. As per the Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970, the subject land ought to have been converted into old tenure in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970 without charging any premium as done in the case of Old Survey No.43 at Village :
Abhepura. Accordingly, it is directed that the Revenue Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined Authorities shall grant benefit of Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970 to the subject land purchased by the petitioners. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
6.7. For the aforesaid reasons and observations, the Special Civil Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) KUMAR ALOK Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:29:27 IST 2025