Gujarat High Court
Shivabhai Punjabhai Jadav vs Girishbhai Ramehbhai Patel on 7 August, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/995/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 995 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1 of 2018
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 995 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2018
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 995 of 2025
==========================================================
SHIVABHAI PUNJABHAI JADAV & ORS.
Versus
GIRISHBHAI RAMEHBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
SHRENIK R JASANI(9486) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS HETAL PATEL ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No.6, 7, 8, 9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION
OF DELAY):-
There is no objection to the delay in filing the present
appeal. The delay caused in filling the main Letters Patent
Appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
The delay is condoned. The Civil Application is disposed of.
The Registry is directed to allot regular number to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/995/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Letters Patent Appeal, forthwith.
ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL:-
1. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment
and order dated 07.03.2018 passed by the learned Single
Judge, wherein the challenge was to the order dated
09.05.2016 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the
Revision Application No.206 of 2003, filed by the petitioners
herein. The petitioners herein claim to be the heirs and legal
representatives of Punjiben Punjabhai Jadav.
2. It seems that the proceedings were initiated by the
petitioners, the heirs and legal representatives of deceased
Punjabhai Lallubhai Jadav on the premise that the deceased
Punjabhai Lallubhai Jadav was a sitting tenant of the land-in-
question on the tillers day, i.e. 01.04.1957. The proceedings
initiated by the petitioners under Section 32(1B) were brought
to this Court in Special Civil Application No.4086 of 1981,
wherein the revisional order dated 20.01.1980 was quashed
and the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar & ALT to
decide the question of tenancy in the light of evidence that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/995/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
may be brought by the parties before it. The direction was to
consider the whole evidence and case of the parties without
being carried away by the judgment in appeal or revision
passed by the revenue authorities including the tribunal. It
seems that after remittal, both, the Mamlatdar & ALT as also
the Collector had decided against the petitioners which had
led to filing of Revision Application No.206 of 2003 before the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, dismissed vide order dated
09.05.2016, subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.
3. A perusal of the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal indicates that the tribunal has
categorically recorded that the Mamlatdar & ALT in Tenancy
Case No.36/34 decided on 15.11.1960 held that Punjabhai
Lallubhai Jadav was not the sitting tenant of the land-in-
question. The said order records that the tenant had handed
over the possession of the land-in-question on his own 06
years ago and that he did not want to cultivate or buy the
land-in-question himself.
4. It seems that after the said decision rendered in 1960,
the tenant had died and the heirs of the tenant, namely the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/995/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
petitioners herein had filed a civil suit wherein the Civil Court
framed issue with respect to tenancy of the original tenant
namely Punjabhai Lallubhai Jadav and made a reference to the
revenue authorities to decide the same. The proceedings,
thereafter, had been conducted by the revenue authorities.
5. The revenue tribunal records that the witness of the
petitioners in his testimony recorded on 10.05.2009 and in
cross-examination stated that he had no knowledge of the
earlier order dated 15.11.1960 and that he did not know the
true facts regarding the dispute between the parties. The
tribunal further records that according to the record 7/12
extract of 1955-56, which has shown cultivation pattern-1, the
name of the original tenant was not recorded. There was no
evidence that the tenant had possession of the land-in-
question.
6. The learned Single Judge has further noted that the
deposition of the father of the petitioner namely Punjabhai
Lallubhai Jadav recorded in the year 1960 that the possession
of the land-in-question was handed over to the landlords 06
years before the said deposition, has rightly be relied upon by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/995/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
the authorities. Once the material before the authorities
indicated that the possession was surrendered voluntarily in
favour of the original owner, no case is made out by the
petitioners about possession of the land-in-question by mere
statement of a small room being in their occupation.
7. Taking note of the above, we find that the order dated
15.11.1960 which was passed during the lifetime of the father
of the petitioners namely Punjabhai Lallubhai Jadav namely by
the original tenant, has attained finality. The proceedings
drawn by the petitioners herein after the death of the tenant,
namely Punjbhai Lallubhai Jadav in the form of civil suit
against the original landlord and further reference made by
the Civil Court to the revenue authorities would not take away
the finality attached to the order dated 15.11.1960. The
findings returned by the revenue tribunal as affirmed by the
learned Single Judge that the heirs of the original tenant had
failed to prove the possession of the tenant on the tillers day
in the subsequent proceedings drawn by them, cannot be said
to suffer from any error of law. The present appeal, is
accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to
costs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/995/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Consequently, the Civil Application for Stay would not
survive and the same is disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
