Gujarat High Court
Piyushkumar Ramjibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 4 November, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 623 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
PIYUSHKUMAR RAMJIBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. R.D.KINARIWALA(6146) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DEVANSHIBA RANA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 04/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Devanshiba Rana,
learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf
of the respondents.
2. The petitioner herein has invoked Article 226 of the
Constitution of India being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 dated
07.11.2023 whereby, the application of the petitioner under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
Section 65A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, for
revised NA for multi-purpose, stands rejected, and has prayed
for the following reliefs:
"A. Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this petition;
B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside
the order dated 07.11.2023 and consequently order dated 02.09.2023,
passed by the respondent No.2 more particularly, produced at Annexure-A
Collectively to this petition and further be pleased to direct the respondent
No.2 to decide & allow the applications filed by petitioner under section
65A of the Land Revenue Code;
C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be
pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the order
dated 07.11.2023 and consequently order dated 02.09.2023, passed by
the respondent No.2 more particularly, produced at Annexure-A
Collectively to this petition;
D. Be pleased to grant any other relief/s as may deem fit, proper, in
the interest of justice."
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition
read thus:
3.1 The dispute is with respect to the Survey No.195/3/A/1
(old survey No.288) of Village : Bhesthan, Taluka : Majura,
District : Surat. It is the case of the petitioner that village :
Bhesthan was Inami village and Sureshchandra Store etc. were
the Inamdars. The predecessors of the petitioner were
cultivating the land.
3.2 The petitioner's predecessors and other 27 tenants
approached the learned Assistant Collector, Surat, being
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
aggrieved by the increase in rent by the Inamdar wherein, by
order dated 04.10.1956, name of the petitioner's predecessor
was mutated in the revenue record as 'protected tenant'
namely, Shri Hirabhai Narsinhbhai. The petitioner's
predecessor showed readiness and willingness to purchase the
land-in-question from the Inamdar in view thereof, proceedings
being Tenancy Case No.768/1965 were initiated. The
certificate of sale under Section 32M of the Tenancy Act came
to be issued in favour of the petitioner's predecessor i.e. Shri
Hirabhai Narsinhbhai upon payment of Rs.268.86 to the owner,
upon recording restriction under Section 43(1)(b) of the
Tenancy Act by way of entry No.359.
3.3 Being aggrieved by the restriction imposed in the
certificate issued under Section 32M of the Tenancy Act, the
predecessor of petitioner approached the competent authority
to remove the said restriction, which came to be accepted and
the restriction was removed by order dated 30.12.1988, which
has attained finality. The predecessor of the petitioner also
filed Tenancy Case No.70(O)/13/91 before the Court of learned
Incharge Mamlatdar & ALT (Tenancy) Choryasi Prant at Surat,
which was allowed by order dated 27.08.1991 and attained
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
finality in favour of the petitioner's predecessor.
3.4 The said orders were challenged by the respondent -
State before the learned GRT as also, by filing Special Civil
Application and Special Leave Petition however, the
respondent-State failed in the aforesaid proceedings. In view
thereof, the order dated 27.08.1991 attained finality.
3.5 The petitioner thereafter, preferred an application under
Section 65 of the Code for Non-Agricultural (NA) use
permission, which came to be granted by order dated
13.12.2017. The same has attained finality.
3.6 The petitioner purchased the remaining parcel of land by
registered sale deed and the entry to the said effect was
mutated in the revenue record as Entry No.3429, dated
04.05.2022. The said entry was objected by original seller
however, the said objection was rejected and the entry was
certified in favour of the petitioner certified on 23.06.2025.
3.7 The petitioner thereafter, preferred an application for
revised NA for multi-purpose, which came to be rejected on the
ground that, there is a restriction under Section 43 of the
Tenancy Act and that, proceedings are pending before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
competent authority.
4. Mr. R.D. Kinariwala, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner relied on the record produced in the present petition
and submitted that both the objections raised by the
respondent No.2 are erroneous in view of the fact that, the
restriction under Section 43 of the Act, stand cured as back as
in the year 1988 and that, entry in the name of the petitioner
is certified and has attained finality on 23.06.2025. In view
thereof, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set
aside, the same being contrary to the record.
5. Ms. Devanshiba Rana, learned AGP appearing for the
respondents is not in a position to controvert the aforesaid
factual position.
6. Having heard the learned advocate and learned AGP
appearing for the respective parties, the facts, as referred to
herein above, are not in dispute. This Court has perused the
documents produced on record. From the record, it emerges
that the certificate issued under Section 32M of the Tenancy
Act, wherein, the restriction under Section 43 of the Tenancy
Act was imposed by the competent authority, was subject
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
matter of challenge by the predecessor of the petitioner and
the said restriction is removed by the order dated 30.12.1988
and the same has attained finality. It also emerges that the
entry No.3429 is also certified on 23.06.2025 and the
objections raised by the original seller are rejected.
6.1 Further, the petitioner is already in receipt of permission
for Non-Agriculture use under Section 65 of the Code by order
dated 13.12.2017, duly produced at page 111 to the petition,
having attained finality. The bar under Section 43 of the
Tenancy Act in view of above, is even otherwise not applicable
to a Non-Agriculture land.
7. It is apposite to refer to paragraph 17 of the order dated
14.12.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.6737 of
2016, which reads thus:
"17. I fail to understand why the authorities are insisting for the
payment of additional premium on the premise that the land is now sought
to be used for commercial purpose and not residential purpose. The day on
which the N.A. permission came to be granted, the land seized to be
agriculture land and, therefore, there is no question of now reverting to the
provisions of the Tenancy Act for the purpose of charging additional
premium. At the most, the authorities are entitled to recover the
conversion charges, i.e. from residential purpose to commercial purpose.
But, in any case, the authorities are not justified in asking the subsequent
purchasers to pay additional premium as they intend to put the land for
commercial use. This is exactly what the Tribunal has observed in its order,
and in my view, rightly so."
7.1 It is also apposite to refer to paragraph 2 of the order
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
dated 22.08.2023, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.9 of
2022, which reads thus:
"2. Having heard learned AGP appearing for the State appellants and
learned counsel for the respondents, suffice it to note that with the grant
of permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879,
the land in question goes out of the purview of the Gujarat Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as it would not fall within the meaning of
"land" under Section 2(8) of the said Act. The subsequent application
moved by the writ petitioner for conversion of the land in question which
was declared as non-agricultural land in the year 2006 under the order
passed by the District Development Officer, has to be dealt with in
accordance with the provisions of Section 67(A) of the Gujarat Land
Revenue Code, 1879."
8. For the reasons as recorded herein above:
(a) The impugned order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the
respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside.
(b) The petitioner is at liberty to apply afresh for NA
permission for multi-purpose wherein, the petitioner herein is
in receipt of NA permission and the same be decided by the
respondent authority in accordance with law and the position
of law, as referred to herein above; within the prescribed
statutory period.
9. The present petition is allowed, accordingly. Rule is made
absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
NEHA
