Gujarat High Court

Bhojani Rameshbhai Daulatram vs State Of Gujarat on 13 November, 2025

Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

                                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/11151/2015                                            JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025

                                                                                                                         undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11151 of 2015


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                             Yes            No

                      ==========================================================
                                         BHOJANI RAMESHBHAI DAULATRAM & ANR.
                                                        Versus
                                               STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA(3242) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
                      MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                                                           Date : 13/11/2025

                                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Satyam Y. Chhaya, the learned advocate

appearing for the writ-applicant and Mr. Jayneel Parikh,

the learned AGP appearing for the respondent -

authorities. The petitioners herein challenge the

impugned notice issued by the respondent No.3, Deputy

Collector (Land Reforms), Vadodara dated 06.05.2015 on

the ground that the said notice is beyond the scope and

ambit of Section 76(A) of the Bombay Tenancy and

Agriculture Lands Act, 1948, (for short 'Act'). The

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11151/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025

undefined

respondent No.3 has no authority or jurisdiction to

question the order passed by the respondent No.4 -

Mamlatdar & ALT, Dabhoi, Vadodara dated 12.08.2010

after a lapse of 5 years. Thus provided under section

76(A), such power cannot be exercised beyond the

prescribed period of limitation. The aforesaid has given

rise to the filing of the present petition having prayed

for the following reliefs:

"12A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or directions for quashing and setting aside notice dated 06.05.2015 passed by the respondent no.3.

C. Pending hearing admission and final disposal of this petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay, execution, implementation and operation of the impugned notice dated 06.05.2015 passed by the respondent no.3.

D. Such other and further relief or relieves as may be deem fit, just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11151/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025

undefined

2. Rule was issued by order dated 03.08.2015 wherein

ad-interim relief in terms of para-12(c) is granted which

is continued till the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. Mr. Satyam Chhaya, the learned advocate appearing

for the writ-applicants submits that the land bearing

survey No.313/1/2 of Village Punda, District Vadodara

was in occupation and ownership of the predecessor of

the petitioner i.e. grandmother of the petitioner. In the

year 2008, names of the petitioners were mutated as co-

owner with their grandmother Shrimati Kamlaben in

view of entry No. 1910 duly certified on 25.11.2008.

The said entry was taken into SUO MOTO revision by

the respondent-Collector exercising powers under Section

108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972.

Simultaneously, the respondent No.4 also initiated

proceeding under section 63 read with section 84C of the

Act, 1948 which resulted in proceedings of Tenancy Case

No. 130 of 2010 before the respondent No.4. The

petitioner appeared and submitted relevant documents.

Ultimately considering the provisions of the Act, the said

proceedings were dropped against the petitioners and it

was held that the mutation of the agricultural land in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11151/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025

undefined

favour of the petitioners herein are not in breach of

Section 63 of the Act, 1948 and therefore the notice

under section 84(C) was also withdrawn. The said order

dated 12.08.2010 passed by the respondent No.4 in

Tenancy Case No. 130 of 2010 is duly produced at

Annexure 'B'.

4. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 has no

authority or jurisdiction to question the order dated

12.08.2010 in the year 2015. Reliance is placed on

Section 76A which provides for the revisional powers of

the Collector. Placing reliance on the same, it is

submitted that pursuant to the order dated 12.08.2010,

the petitioners are agriculturists and even the

predecessor of the petitioner were holding agricultural

land in the State of Gujarat. Entry no.1910 was mutated

to name the petitioners as co-owners of the land by their

grandmother. It is submitted that the impugned notice

dated 06.05.2015 issued by the respondent No.4 in

exercise of the powers under section 76A of the Act is

such that the same is unsustainable in eyes of the law.

Placing reliance on section 76A, it is submitted that such

SUO MOTO exercise where no appeal is filed within the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11151/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025

undefined

period provided, the Collector may SUO MOTO or on

reference made on their behalf by the State Government

may call for the record of any inquiry or proceeding of

the Mamlatdar or Tribunal to satisfy itself with respect

to the propriety of the order however no such order can

be passed and passed order as deem fit however no such

record can be called for after expiry of one year and no

order of such Mamlatdar or Tribunal shall be modified

annulled or reversed unless opportunity has been given

to the parties interested.

5. It is submitted that upon bare reading of the

aforesaid Section, the impugned notice dated 06.05.2015

admittedly issued by the Deputy Collector, Vadodara is

time barred. To substantiate his submissions, reliance is

placed on the ratio laid down in 2025 1 GLR page 121.

It is submitted that the aforesaid issue is no longer res

integra. The Hon'ble Division Bench relying upon various

precedents held that no record could be called for by the

Collector or the Deputy Collector after the expiry of one

year from the date of the order of the Mamlatdar or the

Tribunal exercising powers conferred under Section 76A

of the Act. Thus, it is submitted that in light of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11151/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025

undefined

aforesaid settled position of law, the impugned Notice

issued by the Deputy Collector dated 06.05.2015 is

required to be quashed and set aside.

6. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, the learned AGP supported the

issuance of notice by the learned Deputy Collector and

submitted that in view of the order passed by the

Mamlatdar dated 12.08.2010, the issuance of notice dated

06.05.2015 by the Deputy Collector invoking powers

under section 76A of the Act could not be said to be

time barred. Placing reliance on Section 76A of the Act,

it is submitted that it is a ministerial exercise expected

from the Deputy Collector and the same was completed

within one month which was received by the office of

the Deputy Collector on 22.09.2010. It is submitted that

it cannot be said that the impugned proceedings are

time barred.

7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties. It is not in dispute that proceedings

initiated against the petitioner u/s. 84C of the Tenancy

Act, came to be withdrawn by the order passed by the

respondent No.4 - Mamlatdar & ALT on 12.08.2010. By

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11151/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025

undefined

order dated 12.08.2010 passed by the respondent No.4 -

Mamlatdar & ALT, the proceedings under Section 84C of

the Tenancy Act came to be withdrawn. The record and

proceedings were sent to the office of the Deputy

Collector on 22.09.2010. The impugned notice came to be

issued by the Deputy Collector on 06.05.2015. It is not

in dispute that the said notice is issued after a period of

5 years. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to Section

76A of the Tenancy Act.

"76A : Revisional powers of Collector. Where no appeal has been filed within the period provided for it, the Collector may, suomotu or on a reference made in this behalf by the State Government, at any time,-

(a) call for the record of any inquiry or the proceeding of any Mamlatdar or Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such Mamlatdar or Tribunal, as the case may be, and

(b) pass such order thereon as he deems fit:

Provided that no such record shall be called for after the expiry of one year from the date of such order and no order of such Mamlatdar or Tribunal shall be modified, annulled or reversed unless opportunity has been given to the interested parties to appear and be heard."

8. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra wherein

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11151/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025

undefined

as held by catena of Judgments, the Collector or the

Deputy Collector would have no powers to exercise

revisional jurisdiction beyond the period of one year. This

court deems it fit to refer to 1995(1) GLH 758 in case

of Thakorbhai Tribhovandas Rao and Others Vs. The

State of Gujarat and Others.

"Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - S. 76A - "The limitation prescribed by the proviso for the exercise of the revisional powers beyond the expiry of one year from the date of the order is clear and explicit and the Collector will have no revisional power to be exercised beyond the period of one year."

Undisputedly, the orders of the Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Matar which are sought to be revised under Section 76-A were passed in the years 1971, 1972 and 1973. The petitioners have received the notice to appear before the Deputy Collector only in September, 1981. The provisions of Section 76-A read as under:

76A. Where no appeal has been filed within the period provided for it the Collector may, suo motu or on a reference made in this behalf by the State Government, at any time,-

(a) call for the record of any inquiry or the proceeding of any Mamlatdar or Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such Mamlatdar or Tribunal, as the case may be, and

(b) pass such order thereon as he deems fit:

Provided that no such record shall be called for after the expiry of one year from the date of such order and no order of such Mamlatdar or

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11151/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025

undefined

Tribunal shall be modified, annulled or reversed unless opportunity has been given to the interested parties to appear and be heard."

9. In case of Pranavbhai Bhadresehbhai Kagalwala &

Anr. Vs. State Of Gujarat Thro Secretary & Anr.

(Special Civil Application No. 14743/2012), para 10, 11,

12 reads as under:

"10) Section 76A of the Tenancy Act deals with the revisional powers of the Collector and lays down that where no appeal has been filed within the period provided for it the Collector may, suo motu or on a reference made in this behalf by the State Government, at any time (a) call for the record of any inquiry or the proceeding of any Mamlatdar or Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such Mamlatdar or Tribunal, as the case may be, and (b) pass such order thereon as he deems fit. The proviso thereto postulates that no such record shall be called for after the expiry of one year from the date of such order and no order of the Mamlatdar or Tribunal shall be modified, annulled or reversed unless opportunity has been given to the interested parties to appear and be heard. A perusal of the impugned show-cause notice reveals that the same has been issued pursuant to a communication dated 8.8.2011 issued by the Collector, Surat to the Deputy Collector, instructing him to take the order of the Mamlatdar in revision under section 76A of the Tenancy Act. Thus, when the impugned notice has been issued to the petitioners pursuant to the aforesaid instructions issued by the Collector, even if, the contention raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader to the effect that it is the date on which the record and proceedings are called for, which is material for the purpose of determining the limitation under section 76A were to be accepted, in the facts of the present case, evidently, the record and proceedings could not

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11151/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025

undefined

have been called for by the Deputy Collector prior to receipt of the communication dated 8.8.2011 of the Collector, instructing him to take the order of the Mamlatdar in revision. Therefore, the bar under the proviso to section 76A of the Code would operate.

Besides, the statutory period prescribed for calling for the record and proceedings is one year from the date of the order of the Mamlatdar. If, at all, the record and proceedings had been called for within a period of one year from the date of the order of the Mamlatdar, it is not possible to believe that the Deputy Collector would have waited for a further period of three to four years for issuing the show- cause notice under section 76A of the Code.

11) At this juncture it may be germane to refer to the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Thakorbhai Tribhovandas Rao v. The State of Gujarat (supra), wherein the court in the context of section 79A of the Tenancy Act held thus:

"It will be seen that no record can be called for by the Collector after the expiry of one year from the date of the order made by the Mamlatdar or the Tribunal, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of the proceedings of the Mamlatdar or Tribunal. The proviso to Sec. 76A would be applicable even in a case where a Reference is made by the State Government requiring the Collector to call for the record and proceedings for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order. The limitation prescribed by the proviso for the exercise of the revisional powers beyond the expiry of one year from the date of the order is clear and explicit and the Collector will have no revisional power to be exercised beyond the period of one year prescribed by the proviso to Sec. 76A. Therefore, the only contention which was raised on behalf of the petitioners against the validity of the impugned notices belatedly seeking to take up the orders of Mamlatdar and A.L.T passed in 1971, 1972, 1973 for Revision under Sec. 76A of the Act

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11151/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025

undefined

deserves to be accepted. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had hardly any answer to the mandatory provisions of the proviso to Sec. 76A prescribing the time-limit during which the power could be exercised for revising the orders of the Mamlatdar or the Tribunal. This petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. The impugned notices issued by the Deputy Collector, Kheda in Tenancy Revision Nos. 183 to 224 dated 4-9-1981 seeking to revise under Sec. 76A, the orders made by the Mamlatdar or the Tribunal in 1971, 1972 and 1973 are hereby set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs."

12) The above decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case wherein revisional power is sought to be exercised under section 76A beyond a period of one year from the date of the order passed by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. Under the circumstances, it is not permissible for the Collector to exercise revisional powers at this stage. Besides in the said petition also it was a show cause notice under section 76A of the Tenancy Act which was subject matter of challenge, and the Division Bench had entertained and allowed the petition. The contention that the present petition against a show cause notice ought not to be exercised does not merit acceptance, inasmuch as limitation is also a jurisdictional issue. The decision in the case of Radhesyham Laluram Kabra v. Shantilal Manilal Solanki, (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, in the said case the record and proceedings had been called for within the period specified under section 76A of the Tenancy Act."

10. In case of DALSUKHBHAI CHATURBHAI PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. reported in 2025(1) GLR 21 (LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11151/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025

undefined

813 of 2020 decided on 22.04.2024), para 6.7, 8 and 9

reads as under:

6.7 Reading the aforesaid decision, the Full Bench of the court has assigned the meaning to the word "call" being akin to "to summon". According to the Full Bench, it contemplates some action or application of mind on the part of the State Government or its delegates. It cannot be equated with a mechanical, clerical or a ministerial act of calling for the records of all the proceedings. It was therefore found by the Full Bench that the legislature in its wisdom had restricted the limitation period under the proviso only to the calling for the records. In other words, therefore, the submission of the learned AGP with regard to the ministerial act and the sending of records satisfying the aspect of limitation clearly is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench. The reading of the decision of the Full Bench clearly indicates that the legislature has not treated "calling for the records" as a ministerial act but a conscious act on the part of the revisional authority after due application of mind and therefore it is quite obvious that after applying the mind the revisional authority will have to call for the record or proceedings. Therefore, the letter dated 16.07.2018 sending the records can in no manner be interpreted to mean "calling for the records". It is in light of this that in light of the provisions of judgement of the Apex court in the case of State of Gujarat v.

Patel Raghava Natha, AIR 1969 SC 1297 that the Full Bench quashed the notice as being beyond a reasonable period.

8. A valiant effort has been made by learned AGP to submit that while exercising powers and in the event of quashing the notice we would resurrect an illegal order inasmuch as the Mamlatdar & ALT under the Tenancy Act had passed the order which is sought to be revised without application of mind inasmuch as the provisions of Section 63A ought to have been applied which was not done, whereas the Mamlatdar had undertaken an exercise in the application of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11151/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025

undefined

Section 63AB.

9. Having held that the show-cause notice dated 06.06.2020 is beyond time, we would not be required to undertake the very exercise that we should, however, what is apparent is that pending Letters Patent Appeal No. 813 of 2020, the revenue authorities proceeded to pass an order on merits pursuant to the notice which was impugned in the first round and an order dated 13.10.2020 was passed which triggered Special Civil Application No. 1546 of 2020 which the learned Single Judge of this court has dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy which has given rise to consequential Letters Patent Appeal No. 349 of 2022. We may therefore discuss the issue of application of Section 63AD. Section 63AD of the Tenancy Act which was inserted and brought into force on 05.12.2015 reads as under:

"63AD. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 84C, where the Mamalatdar suo moto or on the application of any person, has reason to believe that, in the breach of the provisions of clause (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of section 63, transfer of the land has taken place in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist or in favour of any institution, the Mamalatdar shall issue a notice to such person or institution and, after affording an opportunity of being heard, decide whether the transfer of the land is valid or not.

(2) If the Mamalatdar comes to a decision that the transfer of such land is not valid then he shall pass an order thereby,-

(i) imposing the penalty of three times the amount of the prevailing Jantri of such land on such person or institution in whose favour such land is not validly transferred; and

(ii) directing the person or institution in whose favour such land is not validly transferred to restore the land along with the rights and interest there in to the position in which it was immediately before such transfer within a period of one month of such order.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11151/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025

undefined

Explanation - For the purpose of this Act, the expression "Jantri" means the index of base market values as may be determine by the State Government from time to time."

11. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent No.5

- Collector dropped SUO MOTO proceedings by order

dated 21.09.2010 initiated u/s.108(6) of the Gujarat Land

Revenue Code, 1972 duly produced at Annex. 'D' to the

petition.

12. In view of above, it can be concluded that the

status of petitioners as agriculturists was held to be

valid by both Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.5

upon due inquiry in separate proceedings. The said

entries are mutated in the revenue record, duly produced

at Annexure 'E' to the petition.

13. Considering the aforesaid facts the petitioners are