Gujarat High Court
Lhs Of Alabhai Jethabhai Panchal vs Lakhabhai Danabhai Panchal on 19 June, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3246/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
3246 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 745 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3246 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 745 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17857 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 745 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17857 of 2021
=============================================
LHS OF ALABHAI JETHABHAI PANCHAL & ORS.
Versus
LAKHABHAI DANABHAI PANCHAL & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR VAJUBHAI D THORIA(2403) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 19/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. There is no objection to the delay in filing the instant
appeal. The delay of 16 days has been explained to the
satisfaction of the Court. The Delay Condonation Application
is hereby allowed. The delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is
condoned. The Office shall allot regular number to the appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3246/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge,
whereby while dismissing the civil application filed by the
appellant herein for impleadment in Special Civil Application
No.17857 of 2021, the main writ petition itself has been
allowed.
3. To consider the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant, certain facts noted by the learned Single Judge are
pertinent to take a note of.
4. It is recorded by the learned Single Judge that the entry
No.415, which is subject matter of dispute reflects that the
owner of the land in question was Jethabhai Pithabhai, who
had one brother in the name of Danabhai Pithabhai, who was
having a share in the land in question. However, since
Danabhai Pithabhai predeceased Jethabhai, Jethabhai had
decided to incorporate the names of the sons of Danabhai
Pithabhai in the revenue records, which has resulted in
making the entry No.415, which was sought to be revised by
the Collector in suo motu revision.
5. The learned Single Judge, looking to the above facts,
records that the entry No.415 is nothing but the settlement of
pre-existing rights of the sons of Danabhai who were having a
share in the land in question and thus, would be regarded as a
partition of the land between the family members. Such an
arrangement cannot fall within the meaning of a "transaction"
which was required to be registered in any manner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3246/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
6. These facts are relevant so as to examine the claim of
the appellant herein seeking for impleadment as a party
respondent in the Special Civil Application filed by the
recorded tenure holders namely sons of Danabhai Pithabhai in
challenging the action of the order of the Collector in
expunging entry No.415, by passing the order impugned in
the suo motu revision.
7. As regards the claim of the appellant herein, as
submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the
appellants / applicants of the impleadment application are
grandsons of Jethabhai Pithabhai, who themselves have
executed a sale deed in the year 2018 to part away their
rights, if any, with respect to the land in question.
8. The contention is that being the grandsons of Jethabhai
Pithabhai, the appellants are having a substantial interest in
the land in question and since the purchasers of the sale
deeds executed by them are not before the Court, they ought
to have been given right to participate in the proceedings.
9. These submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellants itself show that the appellants have left with no
right or interest in the land in question after execution of the
sale deed, as per their own contention in the year 2018 in
favour of a third party. Moreover, from the findings returned
by the learned Single Judge that the land in question was a
joint holding of Jethabhai Pithabhai and Danabhai Pithabhai
and the oral transfer, which has resulted in mutation entry
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3246/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
No.415 in the name of sons of Danabhai Pithabhai was
nothing but partition of the land in question, wherein the sons
of Danabhai Pithabhai had a pre-existing right, the appellants
cannot be permitted to sustain the challenge to the entry
No.415.
10. In view of the above, no merit is found in the submission
of the learned counsel for the appellant to challenge the order
of rejection of the impleadment application and the order
allowing the writ petition. The appeal stands dismissed being
devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
11. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, all pending
civil applications also stand disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
SAHIL S. RANGER
