Gujarat High Court
Mohanbhai Pitambarbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4956/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
4956 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1128 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1128 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16610 of 2024
=============================================
MOHANBHAI PITAMBARBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR YN RAVANI(718) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,2.1,2.2
MS HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MEET D KAKADIA(11896) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) ORDER IN DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION :
1. Mr.S.P.Majmudar, learned advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.3. Ms.Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for the State respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsels for the respondents that they have no objection to the delay condonation application. The delay of 38 days in filing the instant appeal is explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
2. The delay condonation application is hereby allowed.
The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Office shall allot regular number to the appeal.
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:11:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4956/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL :
3. This is an intra-court appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition of the appellants herein holding that the appellants herein, namely the original petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition, inasmuch as, they cannot be treated to be persons aggrieved by the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.
4. A perusal of the record of the writ petition indicates that the appellants herein claiming to be the heirs and legal representatives of Mr.Ganpatbhai Pitambarbhai Parmar had filed the writ petition with the reliefs as under :-
"(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, in Revision Application no.TEN/BA/96/2020 (Annexure: A) and confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector (LR) in Tennacy/Revision/case no.31 of 2019.
(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, in Revision Application no.TEN/BA/96/2020 (Annexure:A)."
5. As per the statement made in the writ petition, the petitioners would submit that the land bearing Survey No.120 admeasuring 00-46-54 Hectare-Aare-sq.mtrs. situated at village Tandalja, Taluka Vadodara, District Vadodara had been purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:11:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4956/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined vide registered sale deed dated 15.04.1968. The petitioners claim to be the heirs of Khana Natha who had purchased the land in question vide the aforesaid sale deed and whose name was stated to have been mutated vide entry No.975. It is, however, stated in paragraph '3.3' of the writ petition that the predecessor of the petitioners, namely Khana Natha had sold the land in question in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6 by a registered sale deed dated 30.03.1982 and pursuant thereto, the names of respondent Nos.4 to 6 were mutated in the revenue records in the second column vide entry No.1443. It is further stated that the said sale deed was against the provisions of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (in short as "the Tenancy Act"). The contention in paragraph '3.3' of the writ petition is that the possession of the land in question was never handed over to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 and the petitioners even today continue to be in the possession of the land in question. It is also contended that the sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6 was executed only for the purpose of avoiding the proceedings under the Gujarat Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short as "the ULC Act").
6. The further contention in the writ petition is that the respondent Nos.4 to 6 had also sold the land in question to the husband of respondent No.2 by a registered sale deed dated 20.04.1983. The contention is that the name of the purchaser, namely respondent No.2 was not mutated in the revenue records, inasmuch as, the sale deed executed in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6 itself was in breach of the provisions of Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:11:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4956/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. The further contention is that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely Khana Natha had filled in ceiling form under Section 6(1) of the ULC proceedings and in the said proceedings, it was held that the sale deed dated 30.03.1982 executed by Khana Natha in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 in respect of the land in question was, thus, in breach of the terms and conditions of the order granting exemption under Section 20 and the land in question was included in the land holding of Khana Natha and was further declared as surplus land. A copy of the order dated 27.06.1988 passed by the competent authority under the ULC Act has been appended as Annexure-'E' to the writ petition.
7. It is further contended that the order passed by the ULC authority was challenged in appeal which was dismissed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department vide order dated 29.01.1993 appended as Annexure-'F' to the writ petition.
8. It is further contended in paragraph '3.6' of the writ petition that a panchnama was carried out in another proceeding in Regular Civil Suit No.83 of 2003 and it has been specifically recorded therein that the petitioners are in the possession of the land in question. We may note that there is no whisper in the said paragraph as to who had filed the aforesaid suit.
9. Be that as it may, there is a further reference of a proceeding under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act initiated by the Mamlatdar and ALT for the land in question which had Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:11:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4956/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined resulted in passing the order dated 18.01.1989 in Ganot Case No.5798 of 1987. Pertinent is to note that by the order dated 18.01.1989, the Mamlatdar and ALT had held that there was no breach of Section 63 and Section 2(6) of the Tenancy Act and the notice under Section 84C was withdrawn closing the tenancy case. It is contended in paragraph 3.7 of the writ petition that the said proceeding was with respect to the sale deed dated 30.03.1982 executed by the grandfather of the petitioners in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 6.
10. It is also stated that the revision applications filed by the grandfather of the petitioners were dismissed both by the Deputy Collector and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide orders dated 28.04.1989 and 11.02.2002. We may, thus, note that with the dismissal of the said revisions, the order dated 18.01.1989 passed by the Mamlatdar in the proceedings under Section 84C against the respondent Nos.4 to 6 had attained finality.
11. Insofar as the order impugned dated 09.04.2024 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, subject matter of challenge before the Writ Court, pertinent is to note that the said proceeding was drawn at the instance of the husband of respondent No.2, who had purchased the land in question from respondent Nos.4 to 6 vide registered sale deed dated 20.04.1983.
12. A perusal of the averment made in paragraph '3.16' of the writ petition indicates that the husband of the respondent No.2, namely Girishchandra Manilal Zala had approached the Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:11:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4956/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Mamlatdar for mutation of his name and at that point of time, he found that there were entry Nos.2468 to 2470 mutated in the name of respondent Nos.7 to 9. The objections against the said mutation entries were then filed on the ground that the recorded persons, namely respondent Nos.7 to 9 had obtained a consent decree in their favour in Regular Civil Suit Nos.380 of 1998, 391 of 1998 and 392 of 1998 in contravention of the provisions of Section 2(6) and 63(1) of the Tenancy Act.
13. It is stated that pursuant to the said application dated 15.09.204 filed by the husband of respondent No.2, namely Mr.Girishchandra Manilal Jhala, suo motu proceedings were initiated under Section 63(1) and 84C of the Tenancy Act and Case No.500 of 2004 was registered. It is also pertinent to note that the aforesaid regular civil suit wherein consent decree had been passed in favour of the respondent Nos.7 to 9, was filed against the father of the petitioners herein, namely Mr.Pitambar Khana, wherein respondent Nos.7 to 9 sought declaration for being owner of the land in question by way of adverse possession.
14. Taking note of the above, pertinent is to record that in the proceedings of Ganot Case No.500 of 2004 which has resulted in passing of the order dated 09.04.2024 by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the petitioners moved an application seeking to be joined as party. In this fashion, the petitioners herein became party to the proceedings which was initiated by the Mamlatdar in a suo motu proceeding under Section 63(1) and 84C of the Tenancy Act with respect to the sale deed dated 20.04.1983.
Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:11:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4956/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined
15. In any case, the appellants herein are neither vendor or vendee of the sale deed dated 20.04.1983 and they have no concern with the said sale deed at all.
16. It further seems from the record that admittedly even after dealing with the land in question, i.e. execution of the sale deed by the grandfather of the petitioners as early as on 30.03.1982, the petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest kept on dealing with the land in question one way or the other. The statement in paragraph '3.9' of the writ petition is about a re-conveyance deed executed by respondent Nos.4 to 6 in favour of the Pitambar Khana, namely the father of the petitioners herein. The contention is that the name of Pitambar Khana was mutated in the revenue records by mutation entry No.2492 dated 05.03.1999 which was certified on 17.04.1999 on the basis of re-conveyance deed appended as Annexure-'L' to the writ petition.
17. The contention in paragraph '3.10' of the writ petition is that Girishchandra Jhala, the husband of respondent No.2 had no right, title and interest in the land in question and had illegally executed a registered sale deed dated 28.05.2001 in favour of the respondent No.3, namely Minaben Govindbhai Chauhan, the respondent herein. The said sale deed was impounded for deficit stamp duty, however, was later released on 16.01.2008. The further contentions in the writ petition are about the suit filed by respondent Nos.7 to 9 and the applications moved by respondent No.2.
Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:11:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4956/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined
18. In any case, from the entire gamut of facts disclosed in the writ petition, at least, it is evident that once the proceedings under Section 84C initiated against the respondent Nos.4 to 6 with respect to the sale deed dated 30.03.1982 had been brought to its logical end with the passing of the order dated 11.02.2002 by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal affirming the order dated 18.01.1989 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in Ganot Case No.5798 of 1987 holding that there was no breach of Section 63 and 2(6) of the Tenancy Act and the notice under Section 84C was withdrawn, there remained no cloud on the right, title and interest of respondent Nos.4 to 6 transferees of the sale deed dated 30.03.1982, executed by the grandfather of the petitioners.
19. For any dispute in relation to the re-conveyance deed dated 19.09.1999, allegedly executed by respondent Nos.4 to 6 in favour of the father of the petitioners herein, no dispute can be raised in the proceedings under Section 84C, which was initiated suo motu with respect to the subsequent sale deed dated 20.04.1983 executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3, before the Writ Court.
20. In light of the said facts, what has been recorded by the learned Single Judge that for any dispute in relation to the validity of the sale deed dated 20.04.1983 against respondent No.2 or 3, whether the respondent No.3 may be declared as agriculturist or non-agriculturist, the petitioners have no right to agitate. It is categorically recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph '6.1' of the judgment impugned that the Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:11:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4956/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined resultant effect of the remand order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, would be that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 may be declared as not being agriculturists or respondent No.3 may not be declared as agriculturist. However, as a result of such declaration, at the worst, the land in question would either vest with the State Government or in case parties agree to restore the original position of the land in question, then the land would get restored in the name of either respondent No.2 herein or respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein. However, under no circumstances, the land in question would revert back to the appellants herein.
21. The opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are alien to the proceedings under Section 84C and they have no locus to maintain the writ petition as the 'person aggrieved', cannot be said to be suffer from any error of law.
22. In view of the above discussion made, in addition to the findings returned by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any merit in the appeal. No infirmity can be attached to the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal stands dismissed, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY, J) GAURAV J THAKER Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:11:41 IST 2025