[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Puranraj Ganpatraj Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 10 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2185/1997 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 15/10/2025
Pronounced On : 10/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2185 of 1997
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2185 of 1997
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
PURANRAJ GANPATRAJ SHAH & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DHAVAL DAVE, SR. COUNSEL with MR ASHISH H SHAH(2142) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,2
MR JAY BAROT AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the
following reliefs:-
"22(A) The Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ
of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside the impugned orders at Annexures 'G'
and 'H' hereto; and consequently holding that the petitioners are
entitled to hold the land in dispute virtue of the will executed in
their favour at Annexure'A' hereto;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2185/1997 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition,
the Honourable Court may be pleased to stay execution, operation
and implementation of the impugned orders at Annexures 'G' and
'H' hereto; and be further pleased to stay further proceedings, if
any, initiated pursuant to the said orders;
(C) Such other and further relief or reliefs as may be deemed just
and expedient in view of the facts and circumstances of the case
may of kindly be granted;
(D) Costs of this petition may kindly be awarded to the
petitioners."
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present writ petition is
that the land bearing Survey No. 1525, Hissa No. 158 admeasuring
35 gunthas of Village Ognaj, Taluka Daskroi, - District - Ahmedabad
originally belonged to Baldevbhai Khodabhai Vaghela, who
bequeathed it to the petitioners by a Will dated 07.04.1982 and
passed away on 09.05.1987. Based on the Will, Mutation Entry No.
2796 was made on 04.12.1987. Separately, the petitioners
purchased other lands bearing Survey Nos. 559, 560, 561, 563,
564/1 and 564/2 of the same village by a registered sale deed dated
04.11.1988, pursuant to which Mutation Entry No. 2873 was made
on 08.11.1988 and certified on 09.12.1988. Revisional proceedings
were initiated in respect of Entry No. 2796, and by order dated
30.08.1991, the Deputy Collector cancelled the entry, which was
confirmed by the Collector on 25.08.1992. On revision, the Special
Secretary remanded the case for fresh hearing. Upon remand, the
Deputy Collector issued notice on 17.01.1996 not only for Entry No.
2796 but also for Entry No. 2873 and by order dated 31.07.1996
cancelled both entries on the ground of violation of Section 63 of the
Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [hereinafter
referred to as "Tenancy Act" for brevity]. The Collector dismissed
the petitioners' revision application on 24.02.1997, leading to the
present petition before the High Court, in which interim status quo
was granted on 31.03.1997.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2185/1997 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
3. Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned senior counsel along with by
Mr. Ashish Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Will was executed in accordance with the Indian Succession Act,
1925, and once probate was granted, the validity and effect of the
Will attained finality and was binding on all authorities, including
revenue authorities, who had no jurisdiction to disregard or sit in
appeal over the same. It is further submitted that the revenue
authorities, while exercising powers under the Bombay Land
Revenue Code [hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for brevity],
could not ignore or override the mandate of the Central legislation,
namely the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The action of cancelling
mutation entries by disregarding the Will and the probate amounts
to bypassing parliamentary law and is therefore wholly without
authority of law. The authorities also erred in acting solely on the
basis of a Government Circular dated 27.05.1992, which cannot
prevail over statutory provisions or judicial orders, particularly when
the said Circular itself was under challenge before this Hon'ble Court
and its implementation was stayed. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the authorities under the Code have no
jurisdiction to examine or decide issues arising under the Tenancy
Act, including the question whether the petitioners are agriculturists
or whether Section 63 of the Tenancy Act is attracted. Such
questions fall exclusively within the domain of the competent
tenancy authorities. By cancelling the mutation entries on the
ground of alleged violation of Section 63, the revenue authorities
acted without jurisdiction, rendering the impugned orders void ab
initio. It is further submitted that this Hon'ble Court, while allowing
Appeal from Order No. 416 of 1990, had categorically held that
Section 63 of the Tenancy Act does not apply to transfers by Will.
The said judgment continues to hold the field and was binding on
the revenue authorities. He further submits that the initiation of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2185/1997 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
revisional proceedings after an unreasonable and long delay is
arbitrary and illegal. Mutation Entry No. 2796 was effected on
04.12.1987 and certified on 07.01.1988, whereas the show-cause
notice for cancellation was issued only on 10.07.1990, after nearly
three years. Similarly Mutation Entry No. 2873 was effected on
08.11.1988 and certified on 09.12.1988, whereas the notice for
taking it into revision was issued after a period of 7 years. Such
belated exercise of revisional powers, without any explanation, is
contrary to settled legal principles.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that
the petitioners and their predecessors have been agriculturists for
several decades and have been continuously cultivating agricultural
lands much prior to the disputed proceedings. Petitioner No. 1 has
been cultivating agricultural land at Vatva since 1983-84 and
continues to remain in lawful possession, as supported by revenue
records. The family of Petitioner No. 2, including his grandmother
and father, were also agriculturists cultivating lands in District
Valsad, and after the death of his father in 2008, Petitioner No. 2
and other legal heirs have continued cultivation, which is duly
reflected in the revenue records.
5. Per contra, Mr. Jay Barot, learned AGP submits that the
present petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, as the petitioners have an alternative and
efficacious statutory remedy available under the relevant laws. The
petitioners are availing remedies under the Tenancy Act, and
proceedings under Section 84(C) of the said Act are pending. In view
of the availability of such remedies, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed at the threshold. The respondent submits that the land in
question is a restricted tenure agricultural land and could not have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2185/1997 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
been transferred without prior permission of the competent
authority. The petitioners' names were entered in the revenue
records on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 07.04.1982
executed by the original landholder, who had no blood or family
relation with the petitioners. It is further submitted that the
petitioners became agriculturists only by virtue of the Will, and such
acquisition of agricultural status through a Will is not permissible
under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. The mutation entries bearing
Nos. 2796 and 2873 based on such will were therefore illegal, and
the revenue authorities rightly exercised its revisional powers to
cancel the same. The Deputy Collector, Viramgam, after remand,
passed a reasoned order dated 31.07.1996 holding that the
transaction violated Section 63 of the Tenancy Act, which was
correctly affirmed by the Collector. The respondent further submits
that the petitioners, after mutation of their names on the basis of
the Will, proceeded to purchase additional agricultural lands,
thereby further demonstrating the intent to circumvent the
statutory restrictions. Such conduct clearly shows that the Will and
subsequent transactions were structured to defeat the provisions of
the Tenancy Act. It is also submitted that the claim of the petitioners
that they were agriculturists prior to the Will is false and misleading.
The revenue records relied upon by the petitioners pertain to lands
standing in the name of a private company and situated far away
from the land in question, and therefore cannot establish personal
cultivation or agricultural status under law. These facts were not
placed before the authorities earlier and have been raised for the
first time before this Hon'ble Court. In view of the above facts and
circumstances, and considering that tenancy proceedings under
Section 84(C) are pending, the learned AGP submits that the writ
petition lacks merit and be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2185/1997 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
6. Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in
rejoinder submits that it is well settled by a catena of judgments,
including State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha (1969) 2 SCC 187,
that where no limitation period is prescribed, revisional powers must
be exercised within a reasonable time, which depends upon the
nature of the proceedings. In mutation cases governed by Section
135D of the Code, entries are required to be made within a short
period, and therefore initiation of revision proceedings after several
years is clearly beyond reasonable time and vitiates the entire
action. The learned senior counsel further submits that the revenue
authorities, while examining mutation entries under Section 135D of
the Code, had no jurisdiction to decide whether the transaction was
in violation of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. It is further submitted
that at the relevant point of time, Section 135D(8) of the Code did
not empower the revenue authorities to examine transactions with
reference to other statutes. The amendment conferring such power
came into force only on 31.03.2010 and has been held to be
prospective. Therefore, the impugned orders passed prior to the
amendment are clearly unsustainable in law. The petitioners submit
that both petitioners are agriculturists within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Tenancy Act, as they personally cultivate agricultural
land. The Act does not require that an agriculturist must necessarily
own land in his own name. Continuous personal cultivation is
sufficient to confer the status of an agriculturist. Therefore, the
finding that the transaction violates Section 63 of the Tenancy Act is
erroneous and contrary to the statutory definition. It is further
submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia is not applicable to the present case,
as both petitioners were agriculturists at the relevant time, and the
land was not transferred to a non-agriculturist. The factual
foundation in the present case is entirely different and the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2185/1997 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
judgment has been misapplied by the authorities. Without prejudice,
the learned senior counsel submits that even assuming one of the
petitioners is treated as a non-agriculturist, law requires that an
opportunity be granted to work out equities, including permitting
relinquishment of rights in favour of the agriculturist co-holder,
instead of outright cancellation of the mutation entries. The
impugned orders fail to consider this settled principle and are
therefore harsh and inequitable. The petitioners further submit that
the legal heirs of the original landowner have no locus to object to
the mutation entries, as the entries were made pursuant to a duly
executed and probated Will. The probate proceedings have attained
finality and the legal heirs were parties to those proceedings and
had raised no objection. Once probate is granted, the revenue
authorities and third parties are bound by it and cannot reopen the
issue indirectly.
7. Heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the
documents and considered the submissions.
8. The Deputy Collector, in the remand proceedings, held that
Mutation Entry No. 2796 (based on a will) and Mutation Entry No.
2873 (based on subsequent sale) relating to Survey No. 1525/158 of
village Oganaj, Taluka Daskroi, were illegal and liable to be
cancelled, as the respondent had, on the strength of a unregistered
and disputed will, attempted to acquire agricultural lands and the
status of an agriculturist and thereafter purchased additional
agricultural lands, thereby violating the provisions of Section 63 of
the Tenancy Act. The Deputy Collector held that despite contentions
regarding probate of the will, limitation, expenditure incurred on
development, and lack of review power, any illegal or void
transaction reflected in the revenue record can be revised at any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2185/1997 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
time. That probate does not cure violations of revenue laws, and
that the entries were contrary to the Record of Rights and applicable
statutory provisions, and accordingly ordered cancellation of both
the mutation entries.
9. The District Collector, Ahmedabad, by the impugned order
dated 24.02.1997, held that it was evident that the petitioners'
names had been entered in the revenue records on the basis of an
unregistered disputed will through Mutation Entry No. 2796 dated
04.12.1987. Thereafter, on the basis thereof, further purchase of
agricultural lands through Mutation Entry No. 2873 dated
08.11.1988 were effected. Both of these entries had been cancelled
by the competent authority. Although the petitioners contended that
probate of the will had been obtained, that large consideration had
been paid, and that the proceedings were barred by limitation, the
Collector found that the will was an unregistered will. The Collector
further held that the transactions resulted in the petitioner
attempting to acquire agricultural land and status of an agriculturist
in violation of the Code. It was held that Section 63 of the Tenancy
Act was attracted. It was also held that any illegal or void
transaction reflected in the revenue record can be revised at any
time and is not protected by limitation. Therefore, the order passed
by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant cancelling the mutation
entries was legal, proper and required no interference. Accordingly,
the revision application was rejected by the Collector and the
Deputy Collector's order was confirmed. Moreover, the petitioners
are availing remedies under the Tenancy Act and proceedings under
section 84(C) of the said Act is pending.
10. In the present case, the petitioners have purchased the
subject land by way of an unregistered will from an unknown person
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2185/1997 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
not at all related to the petitioners, so as to obtain the status of an
agriculturist. After the death of the original owner Baldevbhai
Khodabhai Vaghela, on the will being disputed by the legal heirs, the
petitioners moved a probate application and after receiving the
same, have entered their names in the revenue record as owners of
the subject land. On the basis of such mutation entry No.2796 based
on transfer by will, the petitioners have further proceeded to
purchase other agricultural lands in the same village by registered
sale deeds. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners had adopted
the procedure of transfer by way of will only to obtain the
agricultural status. The contention of the learned senior counsel for
the petitioners that the petitioners were also holding the agricultural
land prior to execution of unregistered will, cannot be accepted
since the said subject agricultural land was running in the name of
M/s. Prem Conductors Private Limited. If the contention of the
petitioners is to be accepted that they were the agriculturists prior
to execution of unregistered will, then there was no bar for them to
enter into the transactions by way of unregistered will since
thereafter all the lands have been purchased by the petitioners on
the basis of registered sale deeds only. The law on transfer of
agricultural land is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia vs. State of Gujarat
reported in 2020(18) SCC 144.
11. There is another contention raised by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioners that the revision proceedings have been
initiated after a delay of 2½ years and therefore, the same is barred
by limitation. The said contention is also liable to be rejected in as
much as in catena of decisions, this Court has held that a
reasonable period of time to initiate the revision proceedings is
three years. In the present case, the revenue authorities have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2185/1997 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
initiated the proceedings within three years and therefore, it cannot
be said that there is a gross delay in initiating the proceedings
against the petitioners.
12. In view of the aforesaid reasons and observations, the
impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities are just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and
in conformity with the law laid down. No interference is called for in
the impugned orders. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is
accordingly dismissed. The connected Civil Application is also
disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
FURTHER ORDER
After pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the impugned order be stayed for a period of
4 weeks so as to enable the petitioner to approach the higher forum
since the interim relief was operating in favour of the petitioner.
Learned AGP opposes the said prayer considering the fact that the
interim relief is operating in favour of the petitioner for a long time.
The prayer is partially accepted. The impugned order is stayed for a
period of 3 weeks.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
cmk
