Gujarat High Court
Suthar Nyalchand Mohanji vs State Of Gujarat on 13 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8767 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SUTHAR NYALCHAND MOHANJI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DENISHKUMAR B MORAKHIA(8968) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MR N R DESAI(6504) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4.3,6,7.1,7.2,7.3,7.4
MR. R.D.KINARIWALA(6146) for the Respondent(s) No. 5.1,5.2,5.3,5.4
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 4.1,4.2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 13/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. The learned advocates for the
respective parties waives service of notice of rule for the
respective respondents.
3. The factual matrix in the present case is that the petitioners
are the purchasers of the land bearing Survey No.319 of Village :
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
Tharad. By way of registered sale-deed dated 07.04.1986, the
learned Deputy Collector, Tharad initiated proceedings for
breach of condition by instituting Case No.3 of 1994. By the
order dated 19.03.1997, the learned Deputy Collector, Tharad
held that the subject land in question was purchased without
prior permission of the Competent Authority and therefore,
there was a breach of condition. Accordingly, the land was
ordered to be vested in the State Government under Section
79(A) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.
3.1. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Appeal No.36 of 1997
before the Collector, Banaskantha, who, by order dated
04.01.2000, was pleased to confirm the order passed by the
learned Deputy Collector, Tharad. Thereafter, the petitioners
preferred Revision Application No. 470 of 2005 before the
learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. By impugned order dated
07.04.2015, the learned Tribunal has quashed and set aside the
orders passed by the learned Deputy Collector as well as the
learned Collector and directed that the Revenue Authorities shall
take into consideration the sale-deed dated 07.04.1986 and other
relevant material on record and thereafter convert the said land
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
into old tenure land by assessing and recovering an appropriate
premium. Accordingly, the Revision Application came to be
disposed of by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.
3.2. Aggrieved by the direction for assessment and payment of
premium for conversion of the land, the petitioners herein
preferred Special Civil Application No.10518 of 2015 in this
Court. By order dated 30.06.2015, this Court disposed of the writ
petition on the ground that the Collector, Banaskantha, while
deciding the Revision Application, shall take into consideration
the copy of the Revenue Register for the year 1954-1955 and the
Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970 while taking decision
afresh. That by order dated 09.02.2016, the learned Collector in
the remand proceedings held that the subject land has to be
considered as a new tenure land and the assessment of premium
and payment of the same is mandatory in the present case.
Further, it was held that Government Resolution dated
24.11.1970 was not applicable in the present case.
3.3. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Revision Application
No.38 of 2016 before the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
Department. By impugned order dated 31.01.2017, the Revision
Application of the petitioners came to be rejected.
3.4. Aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present
Special Civil Application.
4. The learned counsel, Mr.Hriday Buch, appearing on behalf
of the petitioners submits that in the present case, the subject
land in question was held by the predecessor-in title of the
petitioners - Suthar Natha Ramsi prior to the year 1950. By
Mutation Entry No.387, the name of said Suthar Natha Ramsi
came to be mutated in respect of the subject land in question
under ek sali "on payment of occupancy price in terms of the
Government Resolution dated 28.07.1955". The said Suthar Natha
Ramsi was holding and cultivating the subject land in question till
07.04.1986, when the petitioners purchased the same.
4.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
thereafter, the petitioners applied for non-agricultural use
permission to the Deputy Collector, Tharad in the year 1991,
which came to be rejected by order dated 26.08.1991.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
4.2. It is submitted that in appeal to the Collector, by order
dated dated 20.04.1993, the learned Collector, Banaskantha was
pleased to remand the application of the petitioners back to the
Deputy Collector for fresh consideration. The learned Deputy
Collector held that the land in question was of new tenure and
impartible nature. Thereafter, the learned Deputy Collector,
Tharad initiated proceedings for breach of conditions, observing
that the sale transaction in favour of the petitioners was in
breach since no prior permission was sought before transferring
the land in question.
4.3. The learned counsel submits that after the remand by this
Court vide order dated 30.06.2015 in Special Civil Application
No.10518 of 2015, the learned Collector as well as the learned
Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department have erred in refusing
to grant the benefit of Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970.
4.4. The learned counsel submits that the subject land cannot
be treated as new tenure land on the basis of the Government
Resolution dated 24.11.1970. He submits that the Government
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
Resolution dated 24.11.1970 pertains to those lands and land
holders, who were holding such lands of the State Government
prior to the amalgamation of the provinces into state of Gujarat.
The State Government has directed that such lands shall be
converted to old tenure land w.e.f. 01.11.1970 without taking any
premium. It was further directed that such entries shall state the
land to be old tenure without any restrictions and it was
incumbent upon the Talati to make such endorsement in the
revenue records.
4.5. The learned counsel submits that the predecessor-in-title
of the petitioners - Suthar Natha Ramsi was cultivating the land in
question prior to the Mutation Entry of his name in the revenue
records. He submits that the details of the Revenue register for
the year 1954-1955 as well as the Mutation Entry No.160 would
entitle the petitioners to the benefits of the Government
Resolution dated 24.11.1970 and then lands have been treated
to be as old tenure.
4.6. The learned counsel submits that in the case of similarly
situated persons, the Revenue Authorities have granted the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
benefit of Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970 and then
lands have been treated to be as old tenure.
4.7. The learned counsel submits that the Revenue Authorities
have not considered the cases of the similarly situated persons.
He submits that a perusal of the Hakkpatrak shows that the
predecessor-in-title of the petitioners was allotted the Survey
No.319 on a yearly basis (ek sali), by Mutation Entry No.160, the
promulgation in respect of the same is also granted.
4.8. The learned counsel submits that one Sipai Gulmohammad
Bhikhu was also granted Survey No.43 by Mutation Entry No.387
dated 01.03.1956 as per the same Revenue Register records.
4.9. The learned counsel submits that thereafter, by Mutation
Entry No.541 dated 15.02.1964, the name of the petitioners came
to be confirmed as holders of the land on payment of amount 24
times the actual amount of assessed revenue. He submits that
thereafter, the State Government has issued Government
Resolution dated 24.11.1970 to treat such lands as of old tenure.
4.10. The learned counsel submits that the said Sipai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
Gulmohammad Bhikhu also sold his land to another person viz.
Vaghela Kishansingh Balwantsingh. The learned Deputy Collector
by order dated 21.09.2022 in Appeal Case No.4 of 2022 was
pleased to hold that the said purchaser was entitled to the
benefit of the Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970 and
other standing orders.
4.11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners herein are also similarly placed. The petitioners have
relied upon this order during the proceedings before the
Revenue Authorities. However, the petitioner's lands have been
still held to be of new tenure. He, therefore, submits that looking
into the Revenue Records as well as the Government Resolution
dated 24.11.1970, the subject land purchased by the petitioners
was of old tenure and hence, not required to be assessed for any
premium. He submits that subject land is of old tenure and
therefore, the present Special Civil Application be allowed.
5. Per contra, the learned AGP Ms. Nidhi Vyas appearing for
the respondents submits that the order passed by the learned
Collector, Banaskantha as well as the impugned order passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department are in accordance
with the Government Resolutions. She submits that after taking
into consideration all the revenue records and the Government
Resolution dated 24.11.1970, the subject land cannot be said to
be of old tenure. She submits that the subject land was allotted
to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners on 28.07.1955
without any payment towards occupancy on the basis that the
land was to be considered as of new tenure and impartible
nature. She submits that the benefit of Government Resolution
dated 24.11.1970 can be granted only to those lands which are
granted without any conditions. In the present case, the
predecessor-in-title of the petitioners was granted land with
condition of payment of 24 times of the amount of revenue as
assessed and therefore, the same has to be treated as of new
tenure and impartible nature. She submits that before
transferring the subject land, the petitioners ought to have
obtained prior permission from the Deputy Collector. In the
present case, such permission was never obtained and therefore,
the Revenue Authorities have rightly initiated proceedings for
breach of conditions and appropriate orders have also been
passed. She submits that the impugned orders have been passed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
after taking into consideration all the revenue records and the
applicable Government Resolutions. She, therefore, submits that
the Special Civil Application be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered the
submissions and perused the documents on record.
6.2. The record in the present case reveals that the
predecessor-in-title of the petitioners was immigrant from
Pakistan during the partition period. The said Suthar Natha
Ramsi was holding the subject land in the Tharad State.
Thereafter, he was granted the subject land in year 1956 by
Mutation Entry No.160 upon amalgamation of Tharad State into
State of Gujarat. The said Mutation Entry states that Suthar
Natha Ramsi was in possession of the Survey No.319 on yearly (ek
sali) basis since long and during the existence of Tharad State.
Accordingly, his name was entered into revenue records vide the
said Mutation Entry. This Mutation Entry No.160 also came to be
confirmed in the promulgation. The said Suthar Natha Ramsi held
and cultivated the land in question till the petitioners purchased
the subject land by registered sale-deed dated 07.04.1986. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
said Suthar Natha Ramsi was holding and cultivating the subject
land for more than 40 years. Further, by Mutation Entry No.541
dated 15.02.1964, the said Suthar Natha Ramsi was allotted the
subject land on payment of 24 times of the amount of revenue
assessed, which was also paid in the year 1975. The petitioners
herein claim that the owners of land bearing Survey No.6 and
Survey Nos.13/31 situated in the same village : Abhepura and
allotted the said lands by following the same procedure as in
case of the Suthar Natha Ramsi had sought benefits of the
Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970. The Deputy Collector,
Tharad forwarded his positive opinion to the Collector,
Banaskantha that the said landowners therein ought to be
granted benefit of Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970.
The Collector, Banaskantha, thereafter, sent the said proposal to
the State Government. By communication dated 17.03.2023, the
State Government directed the Collector, Banskantha to pass an
order granting the benefits of Government Resolution dated
24.11.2017. Accordingly, the Collector, Banaskantha has passed
an order on 29.04.2023 in favour of the said landowners of
Survey Nos.6 and 13/31 at Village : Abhepura considering the
Lands bearing Survey Nos.6 and 30/31 (New Survey Nos.114 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
115) as old tenure lands. A perusal of the revenue records shows
that these landowners were granted the lands on the same terms
and conditions as the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners
herein i.e. Suthar Natha Ramsi.
6.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
order passed by the learned Deputy Collector, Tharad in Appeal
Case No.4 of 2022 dated 21.09.2022, which has been passed in
respect of old Survey No.43 at Tharad, which was allotted to Sipai
Gulmohammad Bhikhu and the predecessor-in-title of the
petitioners i.e. Suthar Natha Ramsi on similar terms and
conditions.
6.4. The learned AGP, Ms.Vyas has tried to distinguish the
allotment to Suthar Natha Ramsi and Sipai Gulmohammad
Bhikhu, submitting that Suthar Natha Ramsi was allotted land on
payment of revenue whereas Sipai Gulmohammad Bhikhu was
allotted land without such conditions. The said submission
cannot be accepted since the revenue records show that the said
Sipai Gulmohammad Bhikhu and the predecessor-in-title of the
petitioners- late Suthar Natha Ramsi are similarly situated, their
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
names and land allotment find mention in the same revenue
record register for the year 1954-1955. Both of them were
occupying and cultivating the said land since the existence of
Tharad State and before the merger of the provincial State and
both were granted lands by the Revenue Authorities on similar
terms and conditions.
6.5. Further a perusal of the Government Resolution dated
24.11.1970, shows that the same pertains to conversion of tenure
of the lands which have been incorporated in the Gujarat State
from the erstwhile Mumbai State and merger of other small
States. The said Government Resolution states that taking into
consideration the long length of occupancy, such kinds of lands
shall be converted from new tenure to old tenure without
charging of any premium. Such conversion shall be done suo motu
by the Talati in respect of the lands coming within their
jurisdictions. As observed hereinabove, it is an admitted position
that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners - Suthar Natha
Ramsi was in long occupation of the land since the existence of
Tharad State and thereafter, upon merger in the State of Gujarat,
he was held to be in occupancy and allotted the same land by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
State Government by relevant mutation entries in his favour in
the revenue records. Thereafter, he has held said agricultural
land till the year 1986 when the petitioners purchased the
subject land by registered sale-deed dated 07.04.1986.
6.6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons
enumerated in the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Deputy
Collector, Tharad in Appeal Case No.4 of 2022 in the case of
similarly situated person are applicable to the subject land
purchased by the petitioners and the petitioners are entitled to
the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970. The
predecessor-in-title of the petitioners was in occupation of the
subject land prior to the merger of Tharad State into the State
of Gujarat. Thereafter, he was in occupation of the subject land
by Mutation Entry No.160 in the revenue register in the year
1955-1956, which was duly certified. As per the Government
Resolution dated 24.11.1970, the subject land ought to have
been converted into old tenure in accordance with the
Government Resolution dated 24.11.1970 without charging any
premium as done in the case of Old Survey No.43 at Village :
Abhepura. Accordingly, it is directed that the Revenue
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8767/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
Authorities shall grant benefit of Government Resolution dated
24.11.1970 to the subject land purchased by the petitioners. The
said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of this order.
6.7. For the aforesaid reasons and observations, the Special Civil
Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
KUMAR ALOK
