Gujarat High Court
Bachubhai Bababhai Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 16 June, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 331 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 687 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 331 of 2025
==========================================================
BACHUBHAI BABABHAI CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS TRUSHA PATEL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MR.D K.PUJ(3836) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 16/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Ms. Trusha Patel, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
D.K. Puj, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
the appellant does not propose to file any rejoinder to the
affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.5.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record. By means of the present Letters Patent Appeal, the
appellant - original petitioner seeks for quashing and setting
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
aside of the communication dated 29.10.2024 issued by the
Collector asking the petitioner to pay premium with respect to
the land in question.
3. At the outset, we may record that the communication
dated 29.10.2024 is bereft of reasoning and only refers to a
communication dated 17.07.2020 of the Additional Collector
(Vigilance), Gandhinagar asking the Collector to levy premium
over the land in question.
4. We have noted in the detailed order dated 28.04.2025
that the communication dated 17.07.2020 at Page-55 of the
paper-book indicates that it was addressed by the Additional
Collector (Vigilance), Revenue Department with reference to
the communication dated 21.12.2018 of the Collector,
Gandhinagar, wherein some directions were issued to levy
premium with respect to the land in question, which is
revenue survey no.117. It was further noted that the
communication dated 21.12.2018, reference of which is found
in the letter dated 17.07.2020 written by the Additional
Collector (Vigilance), Revenue Department addressed to the
Collector, was another internal communication between the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
Officers.
5. Be that as it may, a show-cause notice dated 09.09.2021
has been issued to the petitioner, which simply records that
the petitioner was required to appear in the office of the
Collector, Gandhinagar on 20.09.2021 for making an inquiry
with respect to the land in question, which has been initiated
on the complaint of a third party.
6. Under the directions issued by this Court vide order
dated 28.04.2025, an affidavit-in-reply, dated 06.06.2025 has
been filed on behalf of the District Collector, Gandhinagar.
The chronological details with respect to the land in question
in survey/ block no.117, admeasuring 7789 square meters of
Village Chiloda, Taluka & District Gandhinagar, are stated in
paragraph-6 [6.1 to 6.18] of the affidavit. It is stated in the
aforesaid paragraphs that the permission for non-agricultural
use of the land in question was granted in favour of the
appellant on 16.07.2012 by considering the land in question
as old tenure land and as such, only conversion charges were
levied. However, on a complaint filed by a third person dated
20.11.2013 and 11.06.2014, wherein the issue with respect to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
the status of the appellant was raised, an inquiry was made
with regard to the sale transaction. It is stated in paragraph-
6.4 of the affidavit-in-reply that for another survey no.90, also
owned by the appellant herein, an inquiry was initiated suo
moto about the status of the appellant, in the revision against
the order dated 01.05.1989 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT,
wherein the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT was
confirmed and the notice issued under Section-84C of the
Tenancy Act was withdrawn.
7. At this stage, it is submitted by Ms. Trusha Patel,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that with
respect to the land in question namely, survey no.117, also
84C proceedings were dropped by the Mamlatdar and ALT
vide order dated 07.05.1985 and the suo moto revision was
decided upholding the order of Mamlatdar on 18.11.1992.
8. The result is that the proceedings initiated against the
appellant herein under Section-84C were dropped as early as
in the year 1992. However, the affidavit-in-reply further refers
to the communications dated 01.11.2014; 24.03.2015;
03.11.2015; 23.12.2015; 11.08.2016; 13.12.2017; 03.10.2018
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
and 03.07.2019 between the Collector; Deputy Collector;
Mamlatdar & ALT, Gandhinagar and the Additional Secretary
(Vigilance), Revenue Department, Gandhinagar and the
Additional Collector (Vigilance Cell), Secretariat,
Gandhinagar.
9. Referring to the said communications, it is stated in
paragraph-6.7 that there are four aspects for the land in
question namely:- (a) That the name of original tenants were
mutated as occupiers of the land in question vide mutation
entry no.1067, which is dated 27.08.1962. The contention is
that pursuant to the said entry, the land in question is to be
considered as restricted tenure land. The second aspect is
with respect to the sale-deed dated 16.09.1967 executed by
the original tenants with respect to which the mutation entry
no.1309 was made on 09.02.1969. It is also stated in
paragraph-6.7(b) that the said mutation entry was certified on
06.04.1969 and as per the revenue records, the land in
question [survey no.117] has been shown as 'old tenure land'.
The contention is that the transaction of the year 1967 was
contrary to the provisions of Section-64, inasmuch as,
premium was required to be paid at the time of sale. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
further contended that though there were subsequent sale-
deeds with respect to the land in question, but no inquiry was
conducted as to whether the title of the land in question was
clear or not.
10. Lastly, it is sought to be submitted that while passing
the order dated 16.07.2012 granting permission for non-
agricultural use for the land in question, no such inquiry was
made on the above noted three aspects. The Additional
Collector (Vigilance Cell), Gandhinagar raised these queries in
the letter dated 03.11.2015 addressed to the Collector,
Gandhinagar. It is further sought to be stated therein that the
Mamlatdar & ALT, Gandhinagar replying to the aforesaid
queries vide communication dated 11.08.2016 addressed to
the Deputy Collector, (Land Reforms) Appeal, Gandhingar,
had stated that the names of original tenants were mutated as
occupiers of the land in question vide mutation entry no.1067
dated 27.08.1962, as per the order passed in the Tenancy
Case and the tenants were declared as persons in possession
of the land in question with the entry made in form 7/12 in
that regard, however, the purchase price of the land was not
determined. After saying so, it is further stated in the same
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
paragraph-6.8(a) that the land is shown as 'old tenure land' in
form 7/12 and the documents related to revenue entry
no.1067 dated 27.08.1962 were sought from the Talati, but
the same are not traceable.
11. From the above statement of facts noted from the
affidavit-in-reply, it is difficult to accept as to how the
Mamlatdar & ALT has reached at the conclusion that the
purchase price of the land was not determined though the
revenue entry dated 27.08.1962 had been made showing the
tenants as occupiers being the persons in possession of the
land in question. There is complete silence of any proceedings
having been undertaken against the tenants in accordance
with the provisions of Section-32(P) of the Gujarat Tenancy &
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [for short referred to as 'the
Tenancy Act'], which provides for the consequences of non-
payment of purchase price by the tenant, determined in
accordance with the provisions of Section-32 and 32(G).
12. We may further note that even the averments are not to
the effect that the tenants had not paid the purchase price
rather it is stated that the purchase price of the land was not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
determined, which was the duty and responsibility of the
tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Section-32(G) of
the Act, 1948. The vague assertion made in the affidavit filed
on behalf of the Collector that the purchase price was not
determined, in view of the admission that the record
pertaining to the revenue entry no.1067 dated 27.08.1962 is
not available, cannot be accepted.
13. The contention of Ms. Hetal Patel, learned AGP
appearing for the State respondent that the tenants were
simply occupiers of the land in question and they did not
became owners by virtue of Section-32 of the Tenancy Act,
1948 in view of revenue entry no.1067 dated 27.08.1962, is
liable to be turned down, being without any basis.
14. In absence of correct and complete records placed
before the Collector by the Mamlatdar & ALT, in the inquiry
initiated by him based on the letter of the Additional Collector
(Vigilance), Gandhinagar it was not permitted for the
Collector to form any opinion about the status of the original
tenants, whose names were recorded in the revenue record as
early as on 27.08.1962 as tenants in possession of the land in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
question.
15. With regard to the sale dated 16.09.1967, executed by
the original tenants/ occupiers of the land in question, as
noted herein before, the entry no.1309 was certified on
06.04.1969. As per the procedure prescribed under Section-
135(d) of the Land Revenue Code, for certification of the
revenue entries, an inquiry is required to be made by the
Competent Authority/ Officer so as to satisfy itself about the
validity of the sale transaction after issuing due notice to all
concerned. There is no order attaching any illegality to the
entry no.1309 dated 09.02.1969 which was certified on
06.04.1969, based on the sale-deed dated 16.09.1967.
16. The further contention made by the Collector in his
affidavit-in-reply that the land in question is to be considered
as a restricted tenure land based on the opinion drawn by the
Mamlatdar & ALT in the communication dated 11.08.2016 is
baseless. No proceedings whatsoever has been initiated with
respect to the sale-deed dated 16.09.1967.
17. We may further record that the appellant herein is the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
purchaser of the land in question vide sale-deed executed on
11.10.1984 and the revenue entry in this regard was recorded
on 12.10.1984. The entry no.1661, dated 12.10.1984 has
further been certified after verification of the status of the
appellant as agriculturist by the Mamlatdar & ALT,
Gandhinagar, which fact is stated by the Mamlatdar & ALT in
his communication dated 11.08.2016, [reference to
Paragraph-6.8(c) of the affidavit-in-reply of the Collector].
18. From the above noted facts, it is evident that the inquiry
initiated by the Collector based on the complaint made by a
third person, has reached at the conclusion of forming an
opinion with regard to invalidity of the sale-deed dated
16.09.1967, without any formal order passed in any
proceedings conducted by any of the revenue authorities. The
affidavit-in-reply filed by the Collector, Gandhinagar, as noted
hereinabove, refers to various inter-departmental
communications, but no order passed in accordance with the
provisions of the Tenancy Act, 1948. The contention that the
status of the land in question as an 'old tenure land' was
wrongly recorded in the revenue records and the order of
conversion of the land in question dated 16.07.2012 for non-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
agricultural purposes was required to be revisited, is, thus,
without any basis.
19. The submission made by Ms. Hetal Patel, learned AGP
appearing for the State respondent based on the averments
made in the affidavit-in-reply to substantiate the
communication dated 29.10.2024, which is a non-speaking
order, cannot be appreciated.
20. It is settled law that the validity of the order passed by
the quasi judicial authority is to be seen from the contents of
the order itself. Any averments made in the affidavit-in-reply
cannot be taken into consideration to add substance or
validity to the order passed by the Collector. Reference be
made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner,
New Delhi reported in [1978] 2 SCR 272 : 1978 (1) SCC 405.
21. Having noted the above, we find that as there has been
no adjudication by any of the revenue authorities on the issues
raised before us and the entire matter proceeded on the
internal communications between the revenue authorities, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
Collector had no jurisdiction to ask for the premium from the
petitioner by sending the communication dated 29.10.2024.
22. The challenge to the communication dated 29.10.2024
sent by the Collector asking premium from the petitioner is
found to be substantiated from the details noted hereinabove.
23. We may note that the learned Single Judge has
committed an error of law in dismissing the writ petition
treating the communication dated 29.10.2024 passed by the
Collector as an order passed under Section-64 of the Tenancy
Act, recording that according to the notice, the land being
covered under the restriction of Section-43 of the Gujarat
Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act, adequate opportunity of
hearing would be provided to the petitioner, in case a detailed
representation is made.
24. The order of the learned Single Judge simply records
that the petitioner has an alternative and effective remedy of
challenging the order before the appropriate authority in
accordance with law, though as on date, there is no order on
record. The communication dated 29.10.2024, which was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
challenged before the writ court, as noted hereinabove,
cannot be treated to be a notice based on any decision of the
revenue authorities, asking for the premium applying the
provisions of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. All these aspects
of the matter could not be looked into by the learned Single
Judge as the writ-petition was dismissed at the admission
stage itself, without calling for the response of the
respondents.
25. For the aforesaid, while setting aside the judgment and
order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
dismissing the writ petition, the communication dated
29.10.2024 issued by the Collector based on the
communication dated 17.07.2020 of the Collector (Vigilance),
Gandhinagar, is hereby quashed. The appeal as well as the
writ petition, both stand allowed.
Consequential entry made in the revenue records as
entry no.6428, dated 12.09.2024 is liable to be expunged. The
revenue authorities are required to make necessary correction
in the revenue records in compliance of this order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/331/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
Consequently, the connected Civil Application stands
disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
