Gujarat High Court
Minaxiben Wd/O Vikramsinh Pravinsinh ... vs Champaksinh Narsinh Mahida on 24 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7499/1999 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7499 of 1999
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7499 of 1999
==========================================================
MINAXIBEN WD/O VIKRAMSINH PRAVINSINH MAHIDA
Versus
CHAMPAKSINH NARSINH MAHIDA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JEET R. JOGANTIA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 24/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. By the present Special Civil Application, the petitioner challenges the orders passed by the revenue authorities, whereby the mutation entries in favour of the petitioner have been revised and deleted in view of the fact that the lands in question have been transferred to the petitioner on the basis of the Registered Will in respect of the subject lands in question.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 43(1) or Section 63(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 does not envisage the Will to be the document of Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 21:49:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7499/1999 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined transfer and therefore, the revenue authorities have erred in deleting the mutation entries in favour of the petitioner. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pravinbhai B Gor. vs. Rajivkumar Gupta reported in 1999(1) GCD 101.
4. The learned AGP appearing for the respondent State authorities submits that the issue in respect of transfer by Will has now been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia vs. State of Gujarat and ors. reported in (2020) 18 SCC 144. He, therefore, submits that the present case is squarely covered by the said decision and no interference is called for.
5. Despite service of rule, none appears for the respondent Nos.1 and 3.
6. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case Rajenbhai Baldevbhai Shah vs. Baijiben Kabhaibhai Patanvadia and ors. reported in 2009(2) GLR 1784, has held thus :-
"11. The expression `transfer' was interpreted by the Apex Court in the context of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Apex Court in State of Punjab (Now Haryana) and others v. Amar Singh and another (AIR 1974 SC 994) held the expression `transfer' is wide enough to cover transfer by operation of law unless expressly excluded. Special Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 21:49:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7499/1999 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined exclusions to save transfer by way of inheritance and compulsory land acquisition by State have been made which would have been supererogatory had involuntary transfers automatically gone out of the pale of Section 10-A(b). Apex Court held that the triple objects of the agrarian reform projected by the Act appear to be (a) to impart security to tenure (b) to make the tiller the owner and (c) to trim large land holdings, setting sober ceiling. The Apex Court held that basic judicial approach must be to discover this soul of the law and strive to harmonize the many limbs to subserve the pervasive spirit and advance the social project of the enactment. The Apex Court in Dayandeo Ganapat Jadhav v. Madhav Vitthal Bhaskar and others [(2005) 8 SCC 340] while interpreting the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 held that the Act has been enacted with a view to protect the tenants and the provisions of the Act, therefore, must be construed in favour of a weaker class of society to ensure that the object underlying the Act is fulfilled. The Act has been described as a beneficial legislation to protect the tenants as well as the agriculturists and parties cannot be allowed to defeat the object and purpose of the Act by executing testamentary disposition.
12. We are, therefore, of the considered view that if the agriculturist is permitted to dispose agricultural property through testamentary disposition to a non-agriculturist the same will defeat the very purpose and object of the Tenancy Act which cannot be permitted by a Court of law, therefore, we hold that decision rendered by the learned Single Judges referred above earlier, otherwise, are not correct enunciation Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 21:49:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7499/1999 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined of law and stand over-ruled. We, therefore, hold that Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act also bars the transfer of agricultural land by an agriculturist to a non-agriculturist for non-agricultural purpose unless permission is obtained from the Collector or any authorised officer as provided in that Section. We are informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that large number of agricultural lands have already been transferred through testamentary disposition to non agriculturists and are in use and if the settled position is unsettled the same will cause considerable prejudice and inconvenience to the parties. We are of the view that there are matters to be considered by the learned Single Judge depending upon facts of each case and equities can be worked out accordingly, on which, we express no opinion. We are only called upon to answer the scope of Section 43 and 63 of the Tenancy Act, which we have already answered."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia (supra), while upholding the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Rajenbhai Baldevbhai Shah (supra), held thus :-
"35. If the provisions referred to in Section 43 of the Act and allied provisions are considered in light of the settled principles extracted earlier, it emerges that the primary concern of those provisions is to see that the legislative scheme of granting protection to persons from disadvantaged categories and conferring the right of purchase upon them, and thereby ensure direct relationship of a tiller with the land. The provisions, though lay down a norm which may not be Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 21:49:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7499/1999 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined fully consistent with the principles of the Indian Succession Act, are principally designed to attain and sub-serve the purpose of protecting the holdings in the hands of disadvantaged categories. The prohibition against transfers of holding without the previous sanction of the concerned authorities, is to be seen in that light as furthering the cause of legislation. Even if by the process of construction, the expression "assignment" is construed to include testamentary disposition, in keeping with the settled principles, the incidental encroachment cannot render the said provisions invalid. In pith and substance, the legislation and the concerned provisions are completely within the competence of the State Legislature and by placing the construction upon the expression "assignment" to include testamentary disposition, no transgression will ensue.
36. We, therefore, reject the submissions advanced by Mr. Srivatsa, learned Counsel.
37. In the premises, we accept the construction put by the Division Bench on the provisions that fell for consideration. The challenge to the view taken by the Division Bench must therefore be rejected. We must also observe that the decision of this Court in Mahadeo which had failed to notice the earlier decisions in Sangappa and Jayamma and which is inconsistent with the decisions referred to hereinabove and what we have concluded, must be held to be incorrectly decided."Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 21:49:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7499/1999 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined
9. In the present case, the petitioners have purportedly inherited by succession the agricultural lands of Block Nos.117, 245, 121 and 274 under three different Wills dated 28.08.1986, 21.01.1988 and 08.06.1989 from the respective owners. They are not the legal heirs and no issue of heirship is involved in the present case. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the present Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
10. The connected Civil Application does not survive and the same is also disposed of.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) cmk Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 21:49:53 IST 2025