Gujarat High Court
Govindbhai Maganbhia Suthar vs Ratilal Chunilal Patel on 3 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/Special Civil Application NO. 20836 of 2006
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/Special Civil Application NO. 20836 of 2006
==========================================================
GOVINDBHAI MAGANBHIA SUTHAR & ORS.
Versus
RATILAL CHUNILAL PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
(4999) for the Petitioner(s) No. 5
AADITYA D. BHATT for MR DR BHATT(165) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5.1,6,7,8
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR GANESH G. BHATT for MR GAURANG H BHATT(166) for the
Respondent(s) No. 4
MR RUTVIJ M BHATT(2697) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MRS PURVA R BHATT(3216) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 03/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel Mr.Aaditya D. Bhatt for Mr.D.R. Bhatt appearing for the petitioners.
2. The present Special Civil Application impugns the judgment and order dated 10.05.2006 in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/247 of 1995 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, whereby it has upheld the order dated 15.12.1993 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Petlad in Tenancy Case and order dated 29.04.1995 in Tenancy Appeal No.641 of 1995 passed by the Deputy Collector.
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:17:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the owners of the subject land in question and had given the land for tilling the same to the respondent No.1. 3.1. It is further submitted that the name of the predecessor of the petitioners is reflected in the revenue records since the year 1953 as the occupant in the land in question. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 was a tenant in the said land. 3.2. The learned counsel submits that these revenue entries continued till an application came to be made by the respondent No.1 under Section 70(b) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in the year 1993, praying for deletion of his name as a tenant in respect of the subject land and to be shown as an occupant thereof.
3.3. The learned counsel submits that the learned Mamlatdar and ALT, Petlad has also recorded the name of the respondent No.1 in the revenue records for the years, 1953 and 1995, which shows that the Respondent No.1 was a tenant of the land in question. However, in view of the heirship entry in the year 1981, Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:17:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined the names of the respondent No.1 came to be entered in the revenue records as an occupant. He submits that taking advantage of the said fact, the respondent No.1 moved an application under section 70 (b) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for a declaration that he is not a tenant in respect of the subject land, but he is the occupant of the same. 3.4. The learned council submits that while granting a declaration in favour of the Respondent No.1 that he is not a tenant in respect of the subject land, the Revenue Authorities have given a negative declaration in favour of the respondent No.1. He submits that there was a mortgage indicated in the revenue records in favour of the predecessor in title of the petitioners, and the authorities failed to appreciate that the petitioners were inducted as tenants in accordance with such mortgage. He submits that the occupation of the respondent No.1 was never as the owner, but always as a tenant of the subject land.
3.5. The learned council submits that under the provisions of section 70 (b) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:17:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined the learned Mamlatdar and ALT, Petlad cannot issue any negative declaration in favour of any person. He further submits that after giving such a declaration, the learned Mamlatdar and ALT has further exceeded the jurisdiction by directing the Talati to correct the error as per the record Rules and enter the name of the respondent No.1 as the occupant in respect of the subject land. He therefore submits that the present Special Civil Application be allowed.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr.Rutvij M. Bhatt appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 submits that the predecessors of respondents were always the owners and in possession of the subject land. He submits that since the predecessor of the respondent No.1 had taken some loan from the predecessor of the petitioners, the land was mortgaged and accordingly, revenue entries reflecting the same were also carried out. He submits that the predecessors of the petitioners were never the owners of the said land at any point of time. He submits that after coming to know of the error in the revenue records and on the basis of the heirship entry in favour of the Respondent No.1, an appropriate application under section 70 (b) Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:17:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, came to be filed before the Mamlatdar and ALT, Petlad for correction of the revenue records. He submits that in the said hearing, it has been clearly admitted by the petitioners that they were not aware of any mortgage, they had never tilled the land in question and they were never occupants of the same. He submits that the statement has been recorded by the Mamlatdar and on the basis of such statement, the application under section 70 (b) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has been allowed in favour of the respondent No.1. He submits that thereafter, in the appeal proceedings, the petitioners challenged the order dated 15.12.1993 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Petlad. However, on the basis of the revenue records and the statement made by the petitioner No.2 herein before the Mamlatdar and ALT, Petlad, the Revenue Authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent No.1 is the occupant of the land in question.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further submits that at no point of time, the petitioners herein could show any relevant document or revenue entry showing them as owners of the subject land in question. He, therefore, submits Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:17:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined that the findings arrived at by the Revenue Authorities below are just, proper and in accordance with the revenue records. Concurrent findings have been rendered by the learned Mamlatdar and ALT, Deputy Collector and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. He, therefore, submits that the Special Civil Application is devoid of merit and be accordingly dismissed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submits that the respondent No.1 is the owner of the subject land in question and the subject land was sold to him by way of registered sale deed dated 05.06.2006. He submits that pursuant to the registered sale deed, the Mutation Entry No.15288 dated 08.08.2006, on the basis of the said sale, has also been recorded and duly certified in his favour. He has submitted that the said registered sale-deed was also never challenged by the petitioners herein till date. Neither has the Mutation Entry been challenged till date. He submits that, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are the owners of the subject land in question at any point of time. The said fact has also not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:17:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined
7. Heard the counsel for the parties and considered the submissions and the documents on record.
8. The respondent No.1 herein is the heir and successor of one Chunibhai Dwarbhai, who was the occupant of the subject land in question. Upon his death, by way of Mutation Entry No. 9169 dated 05.06.1981, the name of the respondent No.1 came to be entered into the revenue records as a legal heir and occupant of the subject land. The revenue entries on record show that there was mortgage encumbrance on the said land till the year 1959- 1960. Only village Form No.6 for the year 1953 and 1955 shows the name of the predecessor of the petitioners as occupant and the predecessor of respondent No. 1 as the protected tenant, and thereafter as a normal tenant. Though the Village Form No.6 for the year 1981 shows the name of respondent No.1 as a legal heir, the corresponding entries in 7/12 extract were not effected. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 had preferred an application under section 70 (b) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act along with the 7/12 extract for the necessary corrections.
Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:17:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined
9. On the said application, the Mamlatdar and ALT Petlad, issued notice to the petitioners and petitioner No.2 herein viz. Manharbhai Maganbhai appeared on behalf of all the petitioners. It has been stated by him in the said proceedings that Bhaiji Shankarji was their grandfather. He had expired 23 years back. That they were not aware of any possessory mortgage on the subject land. That the subject land is in possession of respondent No.1 and that their grandfather or their father had never tilled the subject land in question. On the basis of this statement, as well as on the basis of Mutation Entry No. 9169 dated 05.06.1981 effecting the name of respondent No.1 through heirship, the learned Mamlatdar has held that the grandfather of the respondent No.1 was the original owner of the land in question as per the revenue records and that it seems the subject land was kept in mortgage to the grandfather of the petitioners. He has further categorically held that the subject land has always been in physical possession of the predecessors of the respondent No.1.
10. The learned Mamlatdar and ALT has further observed that twice, proceedings under the Tenancy Act were initiated against Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:17:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined the predecessors of respondent No.1, and the same were dropped as there was mention of mortgage in respect of the subject land. The concurrent findings rendered by the Revenue Authorities as well as the Revenue Tribunal are based on the revenue records in respect of the subject land, as well as the statement of the petitioner No.2 as recorded by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Petlad. The said facts have not been specifically controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners either by way of any revenue records or by way of any other documents in support of the same.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons, the concurrent findings as recorded in the impugned order by the Revenue Authorities need no interference. The Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and, is accordingly, dismissed. The status quo granted vide order dated 12.10.2006 stands vacated forthwith. No orders as to costs.
12. In view of disposal of the main matter, the Civil Application accordingly stands disposed of.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) KUMAR ALOK Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:17:38 IST 2025