[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Govindbhai Maganbhai Suthar vs Ratilal Chunilal Patel Since Deceased ... on 8 December, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1192 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20836 of 2006
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1192 of 2025
==========================================================
GOVINDBHAI MAGANBHAI SUTHAR & ORS.
Versus
RATILAL CHUNILAL PATEL SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HEIRS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
AADITYA D BHATT(8580) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
CHANDNI S JOSHI(9490) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR SANJAY UDHWANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR RUTVIJ M BHATT(2697) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1
MR MAULIN RAWAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. GNANESH G
BHATT(10015) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 08/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record, we may note that this intra-court appeal
is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.09.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ-petition
filed by the appellants herein/original petitioners challenging
the orders passed by the revenue authorities in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Gujarat Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [in short 'The Tenancy Act,
1948'] have been upheld.
2. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that on an
application under Section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act, 1948 filed
by the respondent no.1 before the writ Court namely the heirs
and successors of Chunibhai Dwarbhai, notice was issued to
the appellants herein/ original petitioners. The petitioner no.2
namely Manharbhai Maganbhai Suthar had appeared before
the Mamlatdar on behalf of all the petitioners. It was the case
of the petitioners before the Mamlatdar that Bhaijibhai
Shankerbhai was their grand-father who had expired 23 years
back and they were not aware of any possessory mortgage on
the subject land. The subject land is in possession of
respondent no.1 and the predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioners namely their grand-father or their father had never
tilled the subject land.
3. It is recorded by the learned Single Judge that on the
basis of the above statement as well as the mutation entry
no.9169 dated 05.06.1981, effecting the name of respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
no.1 through heirship, the Mamlatdar has held that the grand-
father of respondent no.1 was the original owner of the land
in question as per the revenue records and it seems that the
subject land was kept in mortgage to the grand-father of the
petitioners. It is categorically recorded by the Mamlatdar in
the order impugned that the subject land has always been in
physical possession of the predecessors of the respondent
no.1.
4. It is further noted by the learned Single Judge that the
Mamlatdar and ALT in the order impugned observed that
twice, proceedings under the Tenancy Act were initiated
against the predecessor of respondent no.1 and the same
were dropped as there was mention of mortgage in respect of
the subject land.
5. Taking note of the aforesaid facts, the learned Single
Judge has refused to interfere in the concurrent findings of
facts recorded by the revenue authorities including the
revenue tribunal which are based on the revenue records in
respect of the subject land. It is also noted by the learned
Single Judge that none of the factual findings could be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
successfully controverted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners either by way of the revenue record or any other
documents in support of the same.
6. Taking note of the above, we may deal with the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in the
present appeal. By placing the documents appended as
Annexures 'A', 'B' 'C' and 'D' to the writ-petition, it was
sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants herein/ original petitioners that the predecessor of
respondent no.1 namely Chunibhai Dwarbhai though was
initially recorded as the protected tenant in the entry no.2939
dated 06.03.1953, certified on 01.06.1953 [Page- '16' of the
paper-book of the writ-petition], however, he was later
recorded as an ordinary tenant.
7. Attention of the Court is invited to the revenue entry
no.3120 dated 10.09.1955 wherein the name of Suthar
Bhaijibhai had been recorded as the possessor whereas the
name of Chunibhai Dwarbhai was recorded as an ordinary
tenant. With reference to revenue entry no.9169 dated
05.06.1981 at Page- '18' of the writ-petition, it is sought to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
argued that the names of heirs of Chunibhai Dwarbhai were
recorded in the revenue records on the basis of heirship.
Placing Annexure-'D' to the writ-petition at Page- '16' thereof,
it was submitted that the name of Chunibhai Dwarbhai was
recorded in the revenue records from the year 1951-52 to
1958-59.
8. The contention is that once the predecessor-in-interest
of respondent no.1 was recorded as an ordinary tenant, the
Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to make a declaration of the
applicant/respondent no.1 being the owner of the subject
land. The contention is that the order passed by the
Mamlatdar dated 15.12.1993 is beyond the scope of
jurisdiction conferred upon him by virtue of Section-70(b) of
the Tenancy Act, 1948.
9. The submission is that the respondent no.1 filed
application under Section-70(b) for seeking a negative
declaration of him being the owner of the land in question and
not a tenant, which could not have been entertained within
the scope of Section-70(b) of the Tenancy Act, 1948. The
appeal and revision filed by the original petitioners have, thus,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
been dismissed illegally by the appellate and revisional
authority.
10. With reference to the entries at page- '84B' of the writ-
petition, it is further sought to be submitted that the
proceedings under Section-32G of the Tenancy Act, 1948
came to be initiated and in the said proceedings, the
Mamlatdar held that there was no relationship of landlord and
tenant and hence, they were dropped. Revenue entry no.4470
dated 29.08.1962 at page- '84B' has been placed before us to
submit that the name of the tenant was bracketed in the
revenue records and taking advantage thereof, the respondent
no.1 made an application to the Mamlatdar & ALT under
Section-70(b) of the Tenancy Act, 1948, which was numbered
as Tenancy Case No.102 of 1993 wherein a declaration has
been made of the respondent no.1 being not tenant of the
subject land, the Mamlatdar & ALT by order dated 15.12.1983
ordered to enter the name of respondent no.1 as occupant and
to delete his name as tenant.
11. Taking note of all these submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellants, we made a pointed query
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
to the learned counsel for the appellants to give the correct
status of the appellants namely the heirs and legal
representatives of Suthar Bhaijibhai Shankarbhai, i.e. his
right, title and interest in the land in question. No plausible
answer could be given from the contents of the writ-petition,
inasmuch as, there is no description about the right of
predecessor of the petitioners over the land in question.
12. However, from the revenue entry no.4470 dated
29.08.1962, which contains the extract of the order dated
26.03.1962 passed in Tribunal Case No.211, it is evident that
the predecessor-in-interest of the original petitioners namely
Bhaijibhai Shankarbhai Suthar was not the original owner or
the landlord of the land in question. The extract of the order
dated 26.03.1962 recorded in the revenue entry no.4470
dated 29.08.1962 indicates that the land in question was
mortgaged to Bhaijibhai Shankarbhai Suthar by one
Chhatarbhai Bapabhai and it is for this reason, it was held in
the proceedings under Section-32G that there was no
relationship of landlord and tenant between Bhaijibhai
Shankarbhai Suthar and Chunibhai Dwarbhai, whose name
was recorded as tenant in the revenue records. It is also
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
pertinent to note that in all the revenue entries placed before
us of the year 1953 and 1955, the predecessor of the
petitioners namely Bhaijibhai Shankarbhai Suthar has been
shown as the occupant (SaH[NFZ) and not as the landlord.
13. In this scenario, the question is as to whether the
original petitioners have locus to participate in the
proceedings drawn by the Mamlatdar to challenge the claim
of the respondent no.1 in the application under Section-70(b)
of the Tenancy Act, 1948. Once it could not be shown before
us that the predecessor of the petitioners namely, Bhaijibhai
Shankarbhai Suthar was owner/landlord of the land in
question, it is not possible for us to accept that the petitioners
have any right to contest the claim of the original tenant in
the proceedings under Section-70(b) of the Tenancy Act,
1948.
14. The concurrent findings of the fact returned by the
revenue authorities as noted by the learned Single Judge are
also in the same line where the Mamlatdar while noticing that
Bhaijibhai Shankarbhai Suthar, grand-father of the petitioners
had never been in possession of the land in question and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
petitioners were not aware of the any possessory mortgage on
the subject land.
15. The findings returned by the revenue authorities as
affirmed by the learned Single Judge that the land-in-question
remained in the physical possession of the predecessor of the
respondent no.1 throughout, could not be assailed before us.
16. For the above reasons, we do not find any error in the
decision of the learned Single Judge. In addition to the
reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, we find it fit and
proper to record that in our considered opinion, the original
petitioners namely heirs and legal representatives of
Bhaijibhai Shankarbhai Suthar had no locus to challenge the
status of the original tenant when they have never been in
possession of the land in question and the name of their
predecessor was recorded as mortgagee. As there was no
landlord and tenant relationship between the predecessor of
the petitioners that of respondent no.1, no infirmity can be
attached to the decision of the revenue authorities.
17. For the above, we do not find it a fit case for inference.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1192/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
The appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, the civil application for stay do not
survive and hence, the same is disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
