[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Chhaganbhai Geriyabhai Gamit vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 9 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1456/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1456 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1455 of 2017
==========================================================
CHHAGANBHAI GERIYABHAI GAMIT
Versus
GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. SIDDHARTH J. DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DIGANT M POPAT(5385) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MR.MRUDUL M BAROT(3750) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,6
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4.1,4.2,4.3
=========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 09/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1) As the issue involved in both the petitions is identical and
based upon the same set of facts and materials, they are being
disposed of by this common order and the facts of Special Civil
Application No.1456 of 2017 are taken in to consideration.
2) By way preferring present petition under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for the
following main relief:
"A) THIS HON'BLE COURT may be pleased to issue writ of
certiorari, or any other writ or order or directions and be
further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders
at Annexure-A/1 to A/3 respectively and be further pleased to
allow the said Ganot/70-B/Case no.2/2005 by declaring and
holding that, the petitioner is a tenant of subjected land
bearing Block No.139 admeasuring 3-06-06 H-ARE-Sq. Mtrs.
situated at Mouje: Kareli, Taluka: Palsana, District Surat."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1456/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
2.1) The petitioner is a tenant and continuously cultivating
agricultural land bearing Block No.139, Survey No.150,
admeasuring 3-06-06 H-Are-Sq. Mtrs. situated at Mouje Village
Kareli, Taluka: Palsana, District Surat (it shall hereinafter be
referred to as the 'subject land') since last more than 30 years
without any interference and interruption. That, one of the
relatives of respondent No.4 herein had come to India in
October, 2004 and enticed the petitioner to handover the
original revenue receipts and other revenue records pertaining to
the subject land to him. As the value of the subject land is
increasing at a skyrocket speed, with the help of anti-social
elements, respondent No.4 wanted to get the possession of the
land from the petitioner, which constrained the petitioner to file
tenancy case before the Mamlatdar & ALT, Palsana under the
provisions of Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act (it shall hereinafter be referred to as the
'Act' for short). However, the said application has been dismissed
by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Palsana by way of order dated
30.10.2009.
2.2) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order,
petitioner herein has preferred appeals before the Deputy
Collector, Bardoli. However, the said appeals have also been
dismissed by the Deputy Collector vide common order dated
16.08.2010.
2.3) The said order of the Deputy Collector has been assailed
before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (it shall hereinafter be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1456/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
referred to as the 'GRT' for short) by way of preferring revision
application. Along with the revision application, a separate
application for injunction has also been preferred. The said
application seeking injunction has been allowed by the GRT and
notice came to be issued to the respondents herein. Being
aggrieved by the said ex-parte order, the private respondents
herein have made submissions before the GRT to vacate the said
ex-parte injunction. However, the said request of the private
respondents has been rejected by the GRT vide order dated
05.01.2012. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said
order, respondents preferred writ petitions being Special Civil
Application No.4652 and allied matters before this Court, which
came to be disposed of by the this Court vide order dated
15.10.2013. While disposing of the writ petitions, the Court
directed the GRT to decide the main revision application on or
before 30.04.2014 and directed the parties to maintain status
quo prevalent on the date 14.09.2010. Thereafter, the GRT
proceeded with hearing of the revision application and ultimately
dismissed the revision vide order dated 02.05.2014. Hence,
present petition is preferred.
3) Heard learned advocate Mr. N. V. Gandhi for the petitioner
and learned AGP Mr. Siddharth Desai for respondent No. 1.
4) Learned advocate Mr. N. V. Gandhi for the petitioner
submits that the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Palsana,
which is subsequently confirmed by the Deputy Collector, Bardoli
in appeals and GRT in the revision application, is unjust and illegal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1456/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
and passed without considering the documents and materials
available on record in true spirit and proper perspective.
Therefore, the orders impugned are required to be quashed and
set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has vehemently
submitted that the documents placed on record before the
concerned revenue authorities had not been considered in true
spirit and proper perspective and by discarding the important
materials/documents and by giving undue weightage to non-
important documents, the concerned revenue authorities have
passed the orders, which ultimately led them to jump to a wrong
conclusion.
5) Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi further submits that it is the
specific case of the petitioner that since last more than 30 years,
the subject land is cultivated by the petitioner as a deemed
tenant and the original landlords are residing outside the country
and on one fine day, the relative of respondent No.4 herein i.e.
one Manubhai Rambhai came to India in the year 2004 and
requested the petitioner to handover to him the original revenue
receipts and other record pertaining to the subject land and
therefore all those materials have been handed over to the said
person and thereafter the respondents had tried to dispossess
the petitioner by getting help of anti-social elements, which
ultimately constrained the petitioner to initiate the proceedings
under Section 70(b) of the Act before the Mamlatdar concerned.
He submits that the said application came to be dismissed by the
Mamlatdar and therefore petitioner herein preferred four
appeals before the Deputy Collector, which also came to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1456/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
dismissed by the Deputy Collector. The petitioner, therefore,
preferred revision before the GRT and along with the said
revision, a separate application for injunction has also been
preferred. At the time of admission of the revision, the GRT had
also granted status quo qua the subject land and also issued
notice to the respondents herein. The said order of granting
status quo by the GRT has been assailed by the private
respondents before this Court by way of preferring a petitioner,
which came to be disposed of with a direction to the GRT to
decide the main revision within stipulated time. Thereafter, the
GRT passed the impugned order whereby the revision preferred
by the petitioner came to be dismissed. Hence, petitioner has
preferred instant petition.
6) Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submits that in fact a specific
contention is raised by the respondents herein that they are the
owners of the subject land and as they are residing outside the
country, they executed one power of attorney in favour of one of
the relatives of the respondents for taking care of the subject
land and the said power of attorney had appointed petitioner as
a Manager of the firm and they used to pay Rs.4200/- as salary to
the petitioner for managing the affairs of the subject land.
Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submits that in fact respondents
have miserably failed to lead any evidence in support of their
contention that they are paying Rs.4200/- to the petitioner as
salary. Despite that, the authority concerned has held that
petitioner herein was working as a Manager of the firm. He
submits that for the purpose of proving his case, the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1456/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
has examined number of witnesses and produced ample
materials, however, those evidences/materials have been
discarded by the Mamlatdar concerned and passed the order
against the petitioner.
7) Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi further submits that it is the
specific case of the petitioner that except the cultivation of
sugarcane rest of the crops have been cultivated by the present
petitioner but due to ignorance of the provisions of the revenue
laws those particular facts have not been disclosed before the
revenue talati and in turn those particular facts have not been
reflected in the abstract of village form No.7/12 by the revenue
talati and by putting reliance upon the entries mutated in the
revenue record, the Mamlatdar & ALT jumped to the conclusion
that petitioner has failed to prove by way of leading cogent,
convincing and reliable evidence to suggest that he is the tenant
and ultimately dismissed the application preferred by the
petitioner. He submits that event the Deputy Collector has also
dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner by assigning same
reasons and reiterating the findings given by the Mamlatdar in
the operative part of the order and same view is also adopted by
the GRT in the proceedings of revision.
8) Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi further submits that during
the interregnum period, civil suit is also filed by the petitioner
before the competent Civil Court and as he was suffering from
chronic eye problem and therefore he could not be able to file
present petition within the prescribed period of limitation. He
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1456/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
submits that as on today the possession of the subject land is
with the petitioner and therefore the orders impugned are
required to be quashed and set aside by declaring and holding
that the petitioner is a tenant of subject land.
9) The notice issued by this Court has already been served to
the private respondents, however, none remained present when
the matter is taken up for hearing.
10) Learned AGP Mr. Siddharth Desai for the respondent -
State has objected present petitions with vehemence and
submitted that as per the statutory provisions of law, the
Mamlatdar is the competent authority to entertain an application
preferred under Section 70(b) of the Act. He has referred the
definitions of 'deemed tenant', 'protected tenant' and
'permanent tenant'. He submits that an application is preferred
by the petitioner that he may be declared as a tenant qua the
subject land and it is well settled that petitioner has to prove the
fact that he is a tenant and he is cultivating the subject land as a
'protected tenant' or 'permanent tenant' since last many years by
leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence and if petitioner
failed to prove that fact, in that event, the application preferred
by the petitioner is required to be dismissed. He submits that
petitioner has failed to produce any documents before the
revenue authority that he is the tenant of the subject land and
cultivating the subject land since last many years in the capacity
of a tenant and therefore his application has been dismissed. He
has read the operative part of the order and submitted that since
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1456/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
beginning it is the stand of the respondents that number of fruit-
bearing trees are lying in the subject land and the owners -
respondents are earning profit from the product of various fruits.
He submits that while considering the merits of the case, the
Mamlatdar & ALT concerned has placed heavy reliance on the
provisions of Section 43-A(1)(b) of the Act, and observed that
where fruit-bearing trees such as Chikoo and Mango exist on the
property and Sugarcane Crops are cultivated or harvested, the
provisions of the Act would not be applicable for such category
of land. He submits that, based on the evidence available on
record, so far as another parcel of land, for which also the
petitioner is claiming tenancy right, is concerned, fruit-bearing
trees such as Chikoo, Mango along with standing Sugarcane
Crops are lying in the said land, while so far as the land in
question is concerned, the owners have already harvested
Sugarcane Crops and therefore the subject land would not fall
under the categories of the property where the provisions of the
Act would be applicable. He further submits that for the purpose
of claiming the right of tenancy, one has to come with the
specific case that under certain conditions, he entered into
contract with the landlord. However, in the instant case,
petitioner has not produced any such document to show and
suggest that on the basis of execution of said deed, he entered
into an agreement to carry out agricultural activities on the
subject land as a tenant and therefore in absence of any such
document, the authority concerned is not in a position to believe
that petitioner is the tenant. Therefore, the authority concerned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1456/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
has rightly rejected the application preferred by the petitioner
under Section 70(b) of the Act. He further submits that petitioner
has also produced certain documents before the Mamlatdar &
ALT but after scrutiny, it has come to the notice of the authority
concerned that those documents are created by the petitioner
only after the submission of application under Section 70(b) with
a sole intent to misguide the authority concerned and with a view
to get favourable order. It is also found out from the record that
some of the documents have been created by the petitioner
himself.
11) Learned AGP Mr. Siddharth Desai further submits that to
prove their case, respondents herein have produced ample
evidence before the authority concerned, whereas, the petitioner
has come out with a case that one of the relatives of the
respondents had taken all the revenue record pertaining to the
subject land from the petitioner. In short, petitioner has failed to
produce any document before the authority concerned showing
that he is in possession and cultivating the subject land since last
many years. He further submits that during the course of
recording the evidence, it is the case of the petitioner that he is
cultivating the subject land through various agricultural
equipments, however, all those equipments are also belonging to
the respondents herein. He submits that the documents
produced before the authority concerned irresistibly go on to
show that petitioner has miserably failed to lead any evidence
before the authority concerned which corroborates his stand that
he is in possession and/or occupation and cultivating the subject
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1456/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
land as a tenant since last many years. Thus, the Mamlatdar & ALT
has rightly discarded the evidence of the petitioner and
dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner under
Section 70(b) of the Act and while upholding the said view
adopted by the Mamlatdar & ALT, the Deputy Collector as well as
GRT have also not committed any error either of law and/or facts
apparent on the face of the record, which warrants any
interference at the hands of this Hon'ble Court. He, therefore,
submits that both the petitions being devoid of merits, are
required to be dismissed.
12) Having heard learned advocates appearing for both the
parties and having considered the materials placed on record, it
transpires that the petitioner herein had preferred one
application under Section 70(b) of the Act before the Mamlatdar
& ALT, Palsana, inter alia, alleging that he is a tenant and
continuously cultivating the subject land since last more than 30
years without any interference and interruption. It is also alleged
that one of the relatives of the respondents had come to India
and taken the original revenue receipts and other revenue
records pertaining to the subject land from the petitioner. It is
also alleged that since the value of the subject land is increasing
at a skyrocket speed, with the help of anti-social elements,
respondent No.4 wanted to get the possession of the land from
the petitioner, and therefore petitioner has preferred an
application under Section 70(b) before the Mamlatdar & ALT,
Palsana. However, after appreciating and considering the
evidence and materials, the said application came to be rejected
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1456/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
by the Mamlatdar concerned. Being aggrieved by the said order,
the petitioner herein had preferred appeal before the Deputy
Collector, Bardoli. However, the said appeal also came to be
dismissed by the Deputy Collector. The petitioner, therefore,
assailed the orders passed by the revenue authorities concerned
by way of preferring revision before the GRT. Along with the
revision, a separate application for injunction also came to be
preferred. At the time of admitting the revision, an ex-parte stay
has been granted by the GRT. Thereafter, the respondents herein
have appeared before the GRT and requested to vacate the ex-
parte interim relief granted by the GRT. However, the said
request has not been acceded to by the GRT and therefore a
petition came to be preferred before this Court. The Coordinate
Bench of this Court disposed of the said petition with a direction
to the GRT to decide the revision within some time bound
scheduled. Thereafter the revision application preferred by the
petitioner before the GRT has been dismissed by the GRT.
Therefore, petitioner preferred instant petitions assailing the
orders passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Palsana, Deputy
Collector, Bardoli as well as GRT.
13) It is pertinent to note that the authority concerned has
specifically held that considering the kind of the subject land, the
provisions of the Act would not be applicable to such a land.
Moreover, on scrutiny of the documents produced by the
petitioner, it has come to the notice of the authority concerned
that some of the documents have been created by the petitioner
himself only after the submission of the application under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1456/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
Section 70(b) of the Act with a view to get favourable order from
the authority concerned and petitioner has failed to prove that
he is cultivating the subject land since last many years as a
tenant. On the contrary, respondents have produced ample
evidence on record to show and suggest that petitioner is not a
tenant but in fact he is an employee of the firm and he has been
appointed as a Manager by the landlord and they used to pay
Rs.4,200/- to the petitioner as a salary. It is also found out from
the record that petitioner has not produced any document under
the pretext that all the documents relating to land in question
have been handed over to one of the relatives of original
landlord. The said story put forward by the petitioner is not
required to be believed and rightly not believed by the authority
concerned. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner was not
even in a position to give correct information about the yield of
crops alleged to have been harvested by him through the subject
land.
14) Now, I would like to refer to Section 43-A(1)(b) of the Act
reads thus:
"43-A Some of the provisions not to apply to leaser of land
obtained by industrial or commercial undertakings, certain
co-operative societies or for cultivations of sugarcane or
fruits or flowers.- (1) the provisions of Section 4B, 8, 9, 9A,
9B, 9C, 10, 10A, 14, 16, 17, 17A, 17B, 18, 27, 31 TO 31D
(both inclusive) 32 to 32R (both inclusive), 43, 63, 63A and
64 shall not apply to -
(a) xxx xxx xxx
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1456/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
(b) leases of land granted to any bodies or persons other
than those mentioned in clause (a) for the cultivation of
sugarcane or the growing of fruits or flowers or for the
breeding of livestock;
xxx xxx xxx"
15) I have also gone through the provisions of the Act as well as
reasoning recorded by the concerned revenue authorities while
dismissing the proceedings initiated at the instance of the
petitioner and I am in complete agreement with the reasoning
recorded by the authority concerned and I do not see any reason
to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
revenue authorities concerned. The petitions being devoid of
merits, are required to be dismissed.
16) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitions stand
dismissed. Notice discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
GARVITA
