Gujarat High Court
Govindbhai Maganbhia Suthar vs Ratilal Chunilal Patel on 3 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/Special Civil Application NO. 20836 of 2006
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/Special Civil Application NO. 20836 of 2006
==========================================================
GOVINDBHAI MAGANBHIA SUTHAR & ORS.
Versus
RATILAL CHUNILAL PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
(4999) for the Petitioner(s) No. 5
AADITYA D. BHATT for MR DR BHATT(165) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5.1,6,7,8
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR GANESH G. BHATT for MR GAURANG H BHATT(166) for the
Respondent(s) No. 4
MR RUTVIJ M BHATT(2697) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MRS PURVA R BHATT(3216) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 03/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel Mr.Aaditya D. Bhatt for Mr.D.R.
Bhatt appearing for the petitioners.
2. The present Special Civil Application impugns the judgment
and order dated 10.05.2006 in Revision Application No.
TEN/BA/247 of 1995 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal,
whereby it has upheld the order dated 15.12.1993 passed by the
Mamlatdar and ALT, Petlad in Tenancy Case and order dated
29.04.1995 in Tenancy Appeal No.641 of 1995 passed by the
Deputy Collector.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are the owners of the subject land in question and
had given the land for tilling the same to the respondent No.1.
3.1. It is further submitted that the name of the predecessor of
the petitioners is reflected in the revenue records since the year
1953 as the occupant in the land in question. It is submitted that
the respondent No.1 was a tenant in the said land.
3.2. The learned counsel submits that these revenue entries
continued till an application came to be made by the respondent
No.1 under Section 70(b) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act in the year 1993, praying for deletion of his name as a
tenant in respect of the subject land and to be shown as an
occupant thereof.
3.3. The learned counsel submits that the learned Mamlatdar
and ALT, Petlad has also recorded the name of the respondent
No.1 in the revenue records for the years, 1953 and 1995, which
shows that the Respondent No.1 was a tenant of the land in
question. However, in view of the heirship entry in the year 1981,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
the names of the respondent No.1 came to be entered in the
revenue records as an occupant. He submits that taking
advantage of the said fact, the respondent No.1 moved an
application under section 70 (b) of the Gujarat Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act for a declaration that he is not a tenant in
respect of the subject land, but he is the occupant of the same.
3.4. The learned council submits that while granting a
declaration in favour of the Respondent No.1 that he is not a
tenant in respect of the subject land, the Revenue Authorities
have given a negative declaration in favour of the respondent
No.1. He submits that there was a mortgage indicated in the
revenue records in favour of the predecessor in title of the
petitioners, and the authorities failed to appreciate that the
petitioners were inducted as tenants in accordance with such
mortgage. He submits that the occupation of the respondent
No.1 was never as the owner, but always as a tenant of the
subject land.
3.5. The learned council submits that under the provisions of
section 70 (b) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
the learned Mamlatdar and ALT, Petlad cannot issue any negative
declaration in favour of any person. He further submits that
after giving such a declaration, the learned Mamlatdar and ALT
has further exceeded the jurisdiction by directing the Talati to
correct the error as per the record Rules and enter the name of
the respondent No.1 as the occupant in respect of the subject
land. He therefore submits that the present Special Civil
Application be allowed.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr.Rutvij M. Bhatt
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 submits that the
predecessors of respondents were always the owners and in
possession of the subject land. He submits that since the
predecessor of the respondent No.1 had taken some loan from
the predecessor of the petitioners, the land was mortgaged and
accordingly, revenue entries reflecting the same were also
carried out. He submits that the predecessors of the petitioners
were never the owners of the said land at any point of time. He
submits that after coming to know of the error in the revenue
records and on the basis of the heirship entry in favour of the
Respondent No.1, an appropriate application under section 70 (b)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, came to be
filed before the Mamlatdar and ALT, Petlad for correction of the
revenue records. He submits that in the said hearing, it has been
clearly admitted by the petitioners that they were not aware of
any mortgage, they had never tilled the land in question and they
were never occupants of the same. He submits that the
statement has been recorded by the Mamlatdar and on the basis
of such statement, the application under section 70 (b) of the
Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has been allowed in
favour of the respondent No.1. He submits that thereafter, in
the appeal proceedings, the petitioners challenged the order
dated 15.12.1993 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Petlad.
However, on the basis of the revenue records and the statement
made by the petitioner No.2 herein before the Mamlatdar and
ALT, Petlad, the Revenue Authority has come to the conclusion
that the respondent No.1 is the occupant of the land in question.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further
submits that at no point of time, the petitioners herein could
show any relevant document or revenue entry showing them as
owners of the subject land in question. He, therefore, submits
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
that the findings arrived at by the Revenue Authorities below are
just, proper and in accordance with the revenue records.
Concurrent findings have been rendered by the learned
Mamlatdar and ALT, Deputy Collector and the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal. He, therefore, submits that the Special Civil Application
is devoid of merit and be accordingly dismissed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4
submits that the respondent No.1 is the owner of the subject
land in question and the subject land was sold to him by way of
registered sale deed dated 05.06.2006. He submits that pursuant
to the registered sale deed, the Mutation Entry No.15288 dated
08.08.2006, on the basis of the said sale, has also been recorded
and duly certified in his favour. He has submitted that the said
registered sale-deed was also never challenged by the
petitioners herein till date. Neither has the Mutation Entry been
challenged till date. He submits that, therefore, it cannot be said
that the petitioners are the owners of the subject land in
question at any point of time. The said fact has also not been
controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
7. Heard the counsel for the parties and considered the
submissions and the documents on record.
8. The respondent No.1 herein is the heir and successor of one
Chunibhai Dwarbhai, who was the occupant of the subject land in
question. Upon his death, by way of Mutation Entry No. 9169
dated 05.06.1981, the name of the respondent No.1 came to be
entered into the revenue records as a legal heir and occupant of
the subject land. The revenue entries on record show that there
was mortgage encumbrance on the said land till the year 1959-
1960. Only village Form No.6 for the year 1953 and 1955 shows
the name of the predecessor of the petitioners as occupant and
the predecessor of respondent No. 1 as the protected tenant,
and thereafter as a normal tenant. Though the Village Form No.6
for the year 1981 shows the name of respondent No.1 as a legal
heir, the corresponding entries in 7/12 extract were not effected.
Accordingly, the respondent No.1 had preferred an application
under section 70 (b) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act along with the 7/12 extract for the necessary
corrections.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
9. On the said application, the Mamlatdar and ALT Petlad,
issued notice to the petitioners and petitioner No.2 herein viz.
Manharbhai Maganbhai appeared on behalf of all the petitioners.
It has been stated by him in the said proceedings that Bhaiji
Shankarji was their grandfather. He had expired 23 years back.
That they were not aware of any possessory mortgage on the
subject land. That the subject land is in possession of respondent
No.1 and that their grandfather or their father had never tilled
the subject land in question. On the basis of this statement, as
well as on the basis of Mutation Entry No. 9169 dated 05.06.1981
effecting the name of respondent No.1 through heirship, the
learned Mamlatdar has held that the grandfather of the
respondent No.1 was the original owner of the land in question
as per the revenue records and that it seems the subject land was
kept in mortgage to the grandfather of the petitioners. He has
further categorically held that the subject land has always been
in physical possession of the predecessors of the respondent
No.1.
10. The learned Mamlatdar and ALT has further observed that
twice, proceedings under the Tenancy Act were initiated against
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20836/2006 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
the predecessors of respondent No.1, and the same were
dropped as there was mention of mortgage in respect of the
subject land. The concurrent findings rendered by the Revenue
Authorities as well as the Revenue Tribunal are based on the
revenue records in respect of the subject land, as well as the
statement of the petitioner No.2 as recorded by the Mamlatdar
and ALT, Petlad. The said facts have not been specifically
controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners either by
way of any revenue records or by way of any other documents in
support of the same.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons, the
concurrent findings as recorded in the impugned order by the
Revenue Authorities need no interference. The Special Civil
Application is devoid of merits and, is accordingly, dismissed. The
status quo granted vide order dated 12.10.2006 stands vacated
forthwith. No orders as to costs.
12. In view of disposal of the main matter, the Civil Application
accordingly stands disposed of.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
KUMAR ALOK
