[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Bhurabhai Vajabhai Tadvi vs State Of Gujarat on 11 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4911/2009 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4911 of 2009
==========================================================
BHURABHAI VAJABHAI TADVI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHAD K PATEL(2844) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.5.15
MR JOY MATHEW(448) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1.1,1.2,1.3.1,1.3.2,1.3.3,1.3.4,1.3.5,1.3.6,1.3.7,1.4.10,1.4.11,1.4.12,1.4.13,1.
4.8,1.4.9,1.5.14
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for
the Respondent(s) No. 5,5.2
MR ADITYA PATHAK, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH H SHAH(2142) for the Respondent(s) No. 5.1,5.3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5.2.1,5.2.2,5.3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 11/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
Learned Advocate Mr. Joy Mathew, appearing for the
applicants, submits that the petitioners' father, Bhurabhai
Vajabhai Tadvi, was the owner and occupant of different parcels
of land granted by the Government for rendering services of
Udhravdar and Police Patlai. Since the grant of the said lands, the
father of the petitioners had been cultivating the same and his
name was accordingly mutated in the revenue record. It is further
submitted that Respondent No. 5, Kanjibhai Chunabhai Tadvi, is a
relative of the petitioners' father and he was a minor at the
relevant point of time. The said lands were entrusted to him for
the purpose of looking after the property, and therefore his
name came to be entered in the revenue record as a deputy.
Subsequently, in the year 1959, an agreement came to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4911/2009 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
executed between the petitioners' father and Respondent No. 5,
whereby out of five parcels of land, the subject three lands came
to the share of the petitioners, while the remaining lands fell to
the share of Respondent No. 5. Pursuant thereto, and in
furtherance of the arrangement between the parties, an
application was preferred by Bhurabhai before the Mamlatdar for
mutating his name in the revenue record in respect of the subject
lands. The revenue authorities accordingly mutated the names of
Bhurabhai as well as Kanjibhai in the revenue record vide Entry
No. 477, after recording the statements of both the parties.
Thereafter, upon the death of Bhurabhai, the names of his legal
heirs came to be mutated in the revenue record, and since then
the petitioners have been cultivating and possessing the subject
lands for several years. However, in the year 1986, Respondent
No. 2 preferred an application before the Deputy Collector
seeking cancellation of the entries mutated in the revenue
record in favour of the petitioners. The said appeal came to be
allowed by the Deputy Collector, thereby cancelling the revenue
entry.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector. However,
the Collector also rejected the appeal and confirmed the order
passed by the Deputy Collector. Hence, the present petition has
been filed.
Learned Advocate submits that, in fact, after the initiation
of the above-stated revenue proceedings under RTS proceedings,
a suit came to be instituted by the petitioners against
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4911/2009 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
Respondent No. 5 before the competent Civil Court, wherein a
counterclaim was filed by Respondent No. 5. Ultimately, the
competent Civil Court dismissed the suit and allowed the
counterclaim made by Respondent No. 5. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the said decision rendered by the competent
Civil Court, an appeal has been preferred before the competent
appellate court. The said appeal is still pending for final
adjudication.
In view of the above-stated developments in the matter, at
this juncture and without entering into the merits of the case,
learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to
withdraw the present petition with a liberty to agitate his rights
before the competent authority after the outcome of the appeal
proceedings. Accordingly, he submits that he is not pressing the
present application.
Considering the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter,
notice is discharged and the petition stands disposed of as
withdrawn. However, it is clarified that this Court has not gone
into the merits of the case and the rights of the petitioner are
kept open to prefer an appropriate application before the
competent authority after the civil rights are finally determined
by the competent Civil Court in the pending civil proceedings.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
GARVITA
