GOMTIBEN MANCHAND vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/10236/2026 (GJHC240488262026) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10236 of 2026
==========================================================
GOMTIBEN MANCHAND & ORS.
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PARAM. S. DAVE(14217) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MS. HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 01/09/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. This is a wholly misconceived petition filed by five
persons through their power of attorney, claiming to be heirs
and legal representatives of Late Okhaben Manchand (wife of
Late Ghanchi Manchand Virchand).
2. The contention in the writ petition is that the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein, namely Late
Manchand Virchand Modi, was the original and rightful owner
of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 707 (old Survey Nos.
821, 823, and 828), situated at Village Khimana (Palodar),
Taluka Kankrej, District Banaskantha. It is further submitted
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:56:39 IST 2026
C/SCA/10236/2026 (GJHC240488262026) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
that in or around the year 1999, a fraudulent sale deed
bearing Document No.428/1999, dated 25.05.1999, came to
be executed in suspicious and illegal circumstances,
purportedly by the heirs of Late Shah Narottamdas Kalidas in
favor of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein. The contention is that
the said sale deed is void ab initio and is a nullity in the eye of
law, having been executed without any lawful title or
authority, and a deliberate fraud has been perpetrated upon
the petitioners and their family.
3. The further contention is that on account of the said
fraudulent sale deed, the names of respondent Nos. 4 and 5
had been mutated in the revenue records. However, the stand
of the petitioners is that the mutation entries do not confer,
create, or extinguish any right or title in the land in question.
4. The petitioners would further submit that they had
instituted a regular Civil Suit No.8 of 2024 before the
Principal Civil Judge at Shihori, against the heirs of Late Shah
Narottamdas Kalidas as also the respondent Nos.4 and 5,
seeking for:- (i) cancellation of fraudulent sale deed
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:56:39 IST 2026
C/SCA/10236/2026 (GJHC240488262026) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
(Document No. 428/1999 dated 25.05.1999); and (ii) a decree
of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from
interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession.
5. The contention is that the question of title over the
subject matter is actively sub judice before the Civil Court in
the pending suit.
6. The further contention in the writ petition is that the
petitioners came to know about land acquisition proceedings
for Bharatmala Project (National Highway 1-A, Tharad to
Ahmedabad Expressway, kilometer 36.000 to 56.000) wherein
a compensation award No.01/2014/vashi dated 12.12.2024
has been declared by the respondent No. 2 herein. As per the
award, total compensation of Rs.2.00 crores and odd has been
determined in respect of Survey No. 707 (old No.821) of
Village Khimana (Palodar), and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5
have been enumerated as the interested parties solely on the
basis of revenue entry.
7. The petitioners have, therefore, filed a detailed
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:56:39 IST 2026
C/SCA/10236/2026 (GJHC240488262026) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
application dated 13.06.2026 before the respondent No.2
under Section 76 of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "LARR Act 2013") bringing
to the notice of respondent No.2 the pendency of the regular
Civil Suit, praying for immediate cognizance of the same and
withholding and stopping of compensation to be disbursed to
respondent Nos.4 and 5 and further referring the
apportionment dispute to the competent judicial authority.
8. The submission is that since no order has been passed
by respondent No.2 so far and the petitioners are facing an
imminent and real threat of the compensation being released
to respondent Nos. 4 and 5, which would irreversibly defeat
the petitioners' right in the pending suit and render it
infructuous and illusory, hence the cause of action for filing
the present petition has arisen.
9. From the averments made in the writ petition, we may
note that there is no clarity about any link between the seller
namely the heirs of Shah Narottam Kalidas and the
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:56:39 IST 2026
C/SCA/10236/2026 (GJHC240488262026) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely Late
Manchand Virchand Modi. There is no clarity nor is there any
document on record to substantiate the claim of the
petitioners about the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners
being owner and occupier of the land in question. The copy of
the sale deed dated 25.05.1999 is not on record. As regards
the dispute raised with regard to the pending Civil Suit, where
cancellation of the sale deed is sought on the basis of the
same being an outcome of fraud, the petitioners would be
required to establish their claim before the Civil Court.
10. As on the date of acquisition of the land in question and
even today, the petitioners have no subsisting right, title, or
interest in the land in question, as respondent Nos. 4 and 5
became owners of the land in question as a result of transfer
by way of the sale deed dated 25.05.1999. There is no clarity
as to how and when the petitioners came to know about the
execution of the sale deed and when the cause of action for
filing the suit arose; which is filed in the year 2024.
11. It seems that the petitioners are unscrupulous persons
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:56:39 IST 2026
C/SCA/10236/2026 (GJHC240488262026) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
who had filed the suit in the year 2024 in order to restrain the
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 from getting their rightful claim of
compensation of the land in question, when they came to
know about the acquisition of the land in question.
12. Be that as it may, from none of the averments made in
the writ petition can it be seen that the petitioners would
have any right, title, or interest in the land in question; and as
such there is no question of reference of dispute under section
76 of LARR Act, 2013 to the Civil Court for apportionment, as
the question of apportionment does not arise in a case where
the person claiming compensation has no right, title, or
interest in the land in question, but would arise only in a case
where the person claiming compensation has some right or
interest in the land in question.
13. For the aforesaid, none of the reliefs claimed in the
present petition can be granted. The present petition is
accordingly, dismissed being misconceived. It is open to the
petitioners to pursue their Civil Suit, which shall be
proceeded with strictly in accordance with law without being
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:56:39 IST 2026
C/SCA/10236/2026 (GJHC240488262026) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. The
copy of this order shall be served in the office of the
competent authority by the learned AGP for taking necessary
action in the proceedings under Section 76 already initiated
by the petitioners herein.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
BINA SHAH
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:56:39 IST 2026