Agaria Ramjibhai Bhachubhai vs State Of Gujarat Thro Revenue Secretary
2026 Latest Caselaw 1942 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Agaria Ramjibhai Bhachubhai vs State Of Gujarat Thro Revenue Secretary on 6 April, 2026

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                          C/SCA/6472/2012                                        CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                                                     Reserved On      : 13/03/2026
                                                                        Pronounced On : 06/04/2026

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                  R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.                    6472 of 2012


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

                       ==========================================================

                                 Approved for Reporting                          Yes            No

                       ==========================================================
                                           AGARIA RAMJIBHAI BHACHUBHAI
                                                      Versus
                                 STATE OF GUJARAT THRO REVENUE SECRETARY & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       KRISHAL H PATEL(9644) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR SAURIN A MEHTA(470) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       MR BY MANKAD(440) for the Respondent(s) No. 3.1,3.2
                       RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3.1,3.2,4
                       ==========================================================

                            CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI


                                                             CAV JUDGMENT

1. By way of preferring present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought for the following main relief/s:

"(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to grant writ of mandamus or any writ in the nature

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.04.2012 passed in Sankalan No. Appeal / Revision / TEN 110 / Case no. 4/2012 qua land bearing 197 paiki/2 an non-agricultural land passed by the Respondent no.2 at Annexure A;

(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to restrain the Respondent no.4 or his subordinates from certifying revenue entry no.4842 dated 09.04.2012 qua the land of present petitioner;

(C) Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 and/or Respondent no. 4 or their subordinates to correct the revenue entries subsequently & consequently and to certify all the subsequent & consequent entries pertaining to the said land as the said land being non-agricultural land;"

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Saurin Mehta for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the respondent - State and learned advocate Mr. B. Y. Mankad for respondent Nos.3.1 and 3.2.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Saurin Mehta for the petitioner has referred the facts of the case and submitted that petitioner herein had purchased non- agricultural residential plot Nos.1 to 9, 14 to 17, 18A, 18B, 19A, 19B, 20 to 52, 53A, 53B, 54 to 59 and 10 to 13 (total 62 plots) from respondent No.3 and one Mr. Suresh Nathuram Goyal by way of executing a

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

registered sale deed on 07.08.2006. Pursuant to the execution of registered sale deed, entry No.NAA-931 has been mutated subsequenlty certified on 18.09.2006. He submits that in fact initially the land was agricultural land, which was converted from agricultural use to NA use by the erstwhile owners. He submits that in fact the original property owners i.e. respondent No.3 and one Mr. Suresh Nathuram Goyal had purchased the said property from erstwhile owner by way of executing a registered sale deed on 14.08.1997, pursuant to which, their names had been mutated in the revenue record. He further submits that respondent No.3 and Mr. Suresh Nathuram Goyal were holding status of agriculturist at the time of purchasing the aforesaid parcel of land. Pursuant to the said transaction of purchase, an entry came to be mutated in the revenue record and subsequently it was certified. He submits that thereafter respondent No.3 and Mr. Suresh Nathuram Goyal had preferred an application to the office of District Development Officer for conversion of said land from agricultural use to non-agricultural use. Therefore, the land was converted from agricultural use to NA use and order of NA came to be passed by the DDO on 16.02.2006, pursuant to which, an entry had been mutated in the revenue record. He submits that thereafter the petitioner purchased the plots in question in the year 2006 by executing registered sale deed and paying full amount of consideration to the seller and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

in the year 2007, petitioner sold 26 plots out of the aforesaid 62 plots.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta further submits that in the year 2010, the office of the District Collector, Kachchh issued a Notification, whereby, all the subordinate officers of Kachchh District have been directed to carry out an inquiry and identified the lands of the persons, who are not the agriculturists of the State of Gujarat, despite the fact that, their names are running in the revenue record as agriculturists. He submits that pursuant to the said Notification, certain properties have been identified by the revenue officers concerned and the details of which were forwarded to the office of the District Collector, Kachchh, pursuant to which, an order has been passed by the Collector, cancelling entry Nos. 705, 735, 855, 919, 2121, 2209, 2328, 2329 of village Meghpar Borichi, Anjar and entry No.8832 of village Bhachau as the respondent No.3 was not an agriculturist of the State of Gujarat.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta further submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Collector, entry No.4781 came to be mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, petitioner herein had made an application to the office of the Collector, Kachchh @ Bhuj, inter alia, stating that in the aforesaid order, the land bearing Survey No.197 Paiki

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

2, admeasuring 4 Acres is also included and the said land is already converted into NA by the office of the DDO. He submits that on the strength of the said application made by the petitioner as well as other applications of similar nature, the office of the District Collector, Kachchh passed an order dated 18.12.2010 and clarified that the direction dated 22.10.2010 to freeze the account of agriculturists from other State shall only be limited to agricultural land existing in their names as on the date of passing of the said order and not for the land already converted into NA, with a sole intent to avoid hardship and multiplicity of proceedings. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta further submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order, an entry No.4782 came to be mutated in the Village Form No.6 qua land bearing Survey No.197 Paiki 2 (subject land) and thereby subject land has been exempted.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta has submitted that in fact thereafter a detailed scrutiny of the documents and evidence had been carried out by the Special Mamlatdar & ALT, Bhuj-Kachchh by issuing notice under Section 122 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958 (it shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'Act' for short), wherein, reply has been filed by the respondent No.3 and after considering and appreciating the same, the Mamlatdar concerned had

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

withdrawn the said notice and dropped the proceedings by holding respondent No.3 as an agriculturist of State of Gujarat. The said order of the Mamlatdar & ALT has been taken into suo motu revision by the District Collector, Kachchh under Section 110 of the Act and issued notice to the respondent No.3, inter alia, stating to show the cause as to why the order passed by the Mamlatdar shall not be cancelled. A detailed reply was filed by the respondent No.3 and other persons but those documents have not been considered and ultimately Collector concerned had quashed and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ultimately vested the subject land in the Government without any encumbrance, pursuant to which, an entry has been mutated in the revenue record.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said decision delivered by the Collector, Bhuj, present petition is preferred.

8. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta has vehemently submitted that the Collector has passed the impugned order and vested the land in the Government by losing sight to an important aspect that once the valid NA use permission is granted for any land under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, it ceases to be an agricultural land for all purposes and no law applicable on agricultural land would apply on such

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

land and the authorities cannot allege breach of any provision relating to agriculture land after its conversion into NA use and a valid NA permission creates an estoppel for the authority to issue notice under any law applicable to agricultural land. In support of aforesaid submission, he relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Ravhchand Manekchand Sheth v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2006(2) GLR 1567. It is further submitted that the aforesaid decision would squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta has further submitted that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner had purchased the NA plot from its owners by way of executing a registered sale deed and an entry to that effect is also mutated and thereafter certified by the concerned revenue authorities. He further submits that the District Development Officer concerned had, after verifying and scrutinizing the documents and materials, passed the order of NA and copy of the said order is also forwarded to the office of the Collector and therefore by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the office of the Collector as well as other revenue authorities are at all not aware about the outcome of proceedings of NA. He further submits that the District Collector is the highest revenue authority of a District and therefore it is not proper on the part of the authority concerned to come with a case that they are not at all aware about the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

outcome of those proceedings. It is further submitted that when those particular facts have come on record and well within the knowledge of one and all, in that event, the District Collector need not have to initiate the proceedings under the breach of provisions of the Act against the respondent No.3 and passed the impugned order vesting the land in the Government.

9. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta has further submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that the petitioner herein had entered into transaction in the year 2006 and the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner had purchased the subject land in the year 1997, whereas, the suo motu proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the Collector in the year 2012. Thus, the Collector had exercised the powers almost 5 years after the petitioner had purchased the subject plots and almost 14 years after the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner had purchased the subject land. It is well within the knowledge of one and all that the suo motu powers are required to be exercised within a reasonable time and as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in numerous decisions, when the period is not prescribed in the statute itself, the exercise of powers after 14 years cannot be said to be reasonable one.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

10. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta has further submitted that in fact at the time of initiating the proceedings, the Collector had not complied with the directions issued by the State Government from time to time by way of issuing Government Resolutions. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta has drawn the attention of this Court to a Government Resolution dated 03.02.2005 and submitted that as per the said GR, the Revenue Department has specifically observed that it has come to the notice of the said department that the instructions issued vide GR dated 03.01.1968 have not been scrupulously followed by the revenue authorities of the State and therefore vide aforesaid GR dated 03.02.2005, all the revenue authorities have been directed to scrupulously followed the GR dated 03.01.1968. He has submitted that vide GR dated 03.01.1968, it had been resolved that if the land is converted into NA, the provisions of Section 63 as well as 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act would not be applicable to the said category of lands. He, therefore, submits that despite the aforesaid clear cut GR, the Collector passed the impugned order, whereby, the land already converted into NA has been vested in the Government. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by the Collector is required to be quashed and set aside.

11. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta has further submitted

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

that petitioner is the successor in title and the proceedings have been initiated against the predecessor-in-title by not joining the petitioner as a party to the said proceedings, despite the fact that the name of the petitioner was very much there in the revenue record. It is submitted that, therefore, petitioner was not aware about the outcome of those proceedings but as soon as petitioner came to know about it, immediately he approached before this Court by way of filing present petition. It is submitted that the impugned notice dated 13.01.2012 does not mention the land in question i.e. land bearing Survey No.197, still, however, while passing the impugned order, the District Collector has also included the land in question. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta has further submitted that at the time of admission of the petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has, after considering the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter, admitted the petition and granted status quo qua the subject land. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser, and that the matter has been pending since 2012 and therefore petitioner has been unable to enjoy the fruits of his immovable property for no fault on his part. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta has further submitted that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner has also assailed the order of the District Collector before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and those proceedings are still pending with

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

the GRT. It is submitted that the predecessors-in- title of the petitioner have challenged the action of cancellation of their status as agriculturists of State of Gujarat before the GRT. He, therefore, submits that those proceedings have nothing to do with the present matter as the subject matter of both the proceedings are quite different and distinct one.

12. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta has submitted that based on the earlier order passed by the Collector, immediately, the Mamlatdar concerned had initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act by issuing notice under Section 122 of the Act. He has submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the provisions of law, in that event it would have been found out that a show cause notice is required to be issued to the transferor, transferee as well as all the persons who are having interest in the subject property. However, it is an admitted position of fact that petitioner herein had not been joined as a party to the said proceedings and in absence of the present petitioner, order impugned came to be passed by the Collector in violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, at the time of initiation of the proceedings the authority concerned has not strictly adhered with the statutory provisions of the Act and even not followed the directions issued by the State Government from time to time by way of various Government

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

Resolutions. In view of the aforesaid overall facts of the present case, petition is required to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order impugned passed by the Collector.

13. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi has vehemently opposed this petition. However, he has fairly conceded before this Court that at the time of initiation of the proceedings, though the name of the petitioner is already there in the revenue record, he has not been joined by the Collector and in his absence, order came to be passed in violation of principle of natural justice. He, therefore, submits that appropriate order may be passed by quashing the order and remanding the matter back to the concerned authority to decide it afresh.

14. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for both the parties and having considered the materials placed on record, it transpires from the record that petitioner herein had purchased non-agricultural residential plots from respondent No.3 and one Mr. Suresh Nathuram Goyal by way of executing a registered sale deed on 07.08.2006. Pursuant to the execution of registered sale deed, entry No.NAA-931 has been mutated and subsequently certified on 18.09.2006. It is found out from the record that in fact the original property owners i.e. respondent No.3 and one Mr. Suresh Nathuram Goyal had purchased

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

the said property from erstwhile owner by way of executing a registered sale deed on 14.08.1997, pursuant to which, their names had been mutated in the revenue record. The respondent No.3 and Mr. Suresh Nathuram Goyal were agriculturists at the time of purchasing the aforesaid parcel of land. Pursuant to the said transaction of purchase, an entry came to be mutated in the revenue record and subsequently it was certified. Thereafter, respondent No.3 and Mr. Suresh Nathuram Goyal had preferred an application to the office of District Development Officer for conversion of said land from agricultural to non- agricultural use. Therefore, the land was converted from agricultural use to NA use and order of NA came to be passed by the DDO on 16.02.2006, pursuant to which, an entry had been mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the plots in question in the year 2006 by executing registered sale deed and paying full amount of consideration to the seller and in the year 2007, petitioner sold 26 plots out of total 62 plots.

15. It is found out from the record that thereafter in the year 2010, the office of the District Collector, Kachchh issued a Notification, whereby, all the subordinate officers of Kachchh District have been directed to carry out an inquiry and identified the lands of the persons, who are not the agriculturists of the State of Gujarat, despite the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

fact that, their names are running in the revenue record as agriculturists. Pursuant to the said Notification, certain properties have been identified by the revenue officers concerned and the details were forwarded to the office of the District Collector, Kachchh. Pursuant to the said report, an order has been passed by the Collector, cancelling entry Nos. 705, 735, 855, 919, 2121, 2209, 2328, 2329 of village Meghpar Borichi, Anjar and entry No.8832 of village Bhachau by holding that the respondent No.3 was not an agriculturist of the State of Gujarat. Pursuant to the order passed by the Collector, entry No.4781 came to be mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, the petitioner herein had made an application to the office of the Collector, Kachchh @ Bhuj, inter alia, stating that in the aforesaid order, the land bearing Survey No.197 Paiki 2, admeasuring 4 Acres is also included and the said land is already converted into NA by the office of the DDO. On the strength of the said application as well as other applications of similar nature, the office of the District Collector, Kachchh passed an order dated 18.12.2010 and clarified that the direction dated 22.10.2010 to freeze the account of agriculturists from other State shall only be limited to agricultural land existing in their names as on the date of passing of the said order and not to the land already converted into NA, with a sole intent to avoid hardship and multiplicity of proceedings.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an entry No.4782 came to be mutated in the Village Form No.6 qua land bearing Survey No.197 Paiki 2 (subject land) and thereby subject land has been exempted.

16. Thereafter, a detailed scrutiny of the documents and evidence had been carried out by the Special Mamlatdar & ALT, Bhuj-Kachchh by issuing notice under Section 122 of the Act and after considering and appreciating the reply of the respondent No.3 and other materials, the Mamlatdar concerned had withdrawn the said notice and dropped the proceedings by holding the respondent No.3 as an agriculturist of State of Gujarat. The said order of the Mamlatdar & ALT has been taken into suo motu revision by the District Collector, Kachchh under Section 110 of the Act and issued notice to the respondent No.3, inter alia, stating to show cause as to why the order passed by the Mamlatdar shall not be cancelled. Pursuant to the said order, a detailed reply came to be filed by the respondent No.3 and other persons but those documents have not been considered and ultimately Collector concerned had quashed and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and vested the subject land in the Government without any encumbrance, pursuant to which, an entry has been mutated in the revenue record.

17. The present petition is preferred by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

petitioner mainly on the ground that petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and he had purchased NA plots and therefore as per the decision of this Court in the case of Ravhchand Manekchand Sheth (supra), once the valid NA use permission is granted for any land under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, it ceases to be an agricultural land for all purposes and no law applicable on agricultural land would apply on such land and the authorities cannot allege breach of any provision relating to agriculture land after its conversion into NA use and a valid NA permission creates an estoppel for the authority to issue notice under any law applicable to agricultural land. Moreover, the State Government has also issued directions to the revenue authorities of the State by way of issuing Government Resolution from time to time, whereby, it is specifically resolved that if the land is converted from agricultural to NA use, in that event, the provisions of Sections 63 as well as 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act would not be applicable to those categories of land. Despite that, while passing the impugned order, the District Collector concerned had brushed aside those Government Resolutions as well as the aforesaid decision and ultimately vested the land in the Government. The another ground is that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner had purchased the agricultural land, which was subsequently converted from agricultural to NA use, in the year

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

1997 and petitioner purchased the NA plots in the year 2006, whereas, the District Collector had exercised suo motu powers in the year 2012. Thus, there is gross delay of more than 14 years after the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner purchased the agricultural land and delay of more than 5 years after the petitioner purchased the subject plots. Thus, based on various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the order impugned is required to be set aside only on the delayed initiation of suo motu proceedings at the instance of the District Collector. Moreover, another ground which is raised by the petitioner is that the Collector had initiated the proceedings only against the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner and not joined the petitioner in the said proceeding, despite the name of the petitioner was there in the revenue record as an owner of the subject plots and passed the impugned order in violation of principle of natural justice and therefore the impugned order is required to be set aside. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that petitioner is right in making the aforesaid submissions based on which the order impugned is required to be quashed and set aside.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.04.2012 passed by the District Collector, Kachchh @ Bhuj is hereby

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6472/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026

undefined

quashed and set aside qua the subject land and all the entries, which are cancelled pursuant to the said order, are ordered to be restored. Rule is made absolute.

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) LAVKUMAR J JANI