HIRABHAI GOVINDBHAI LAKHANI vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/15517/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240292612020)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15517 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
HIRABHAI GOVINDBHAI LAKHANI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KISHAN P KOTAK(13912) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR. JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 29/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been preferred under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, read with the relevant
provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, the
Rules framed thereunder and the Saurashtra Gharkhed
Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance,
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/15517/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240292612020)
1949, challenging the legality and validity of the show-
cause notice issued by the respondent authority.
2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may
be issued upon the Learned District Collector, Bhavnagar to drop
the proceedings Invoking powers under Rule 108 (6) ofGujarat
Land Revenue Rules, 1972 read with Section 75 of The Saurastra
Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agriculture Lands Ordinance,
1949, being show cause notice dated 05.06.2020 in case numbered
as RTS/REVISION CASENO. 7 OF 2020;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside show notice cause dated 05.06.2020
issued by the learned District Collector in RTS /REVISION CASE
NO. 7 OF 2020, Bhavnagar as well as all consequential actions
taken if any pursuant thereto and further be pleased to restrain
the Learned District Collector, Bhavnagar from taking any action
pursuant the to impugned show cause notice dated 05.06.2020;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS further may be pleased to hold and declare
that Show cause notice dated 05.06.2020 issued by the Learned
District Collector, Bhavnagar in RTS/REVISION CASE NO. 7 OF
2020 issued under the provision Rule 108(6) of of Gujarat Land
Revenue Rules, 1972 read with Section 75 of The Saurastra
Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agriculture Lands Ordinance,
1949 is bad in law and without jurisdiction;
(D) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition,
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/15517/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240292612020)
YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the implementation,
operation and execution of the show cause notice dated
05.06.2020 issued by the Learned District Collector, Bhavnagar in
RTS/REVISION CASE NO. 7 OF 2020 and further be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive action
against the petitioners;
(E) Any other and further relief that may fit deem by this Hon'ble
Court in the interest of justice;”
3. Factual Matrix:-
3.1. The land bearing Survey No. 111 Paiki, admeasuring
Acre 10.10 Gunthas, situated at Village Tagdi, Taluka
Ghogha, District: Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as
"the subject land"), was purchased by the father of the
petitioner from its original owner by executing a
registered sale deed dated 07.01.1961. Pursuant
thereto, Revenue Entry No. 160 came to be mutated in
the revenue records on 13.03.1961, which was duly
certified by the competent authority. It is further
submitted that, upon the demise of the father of the
petitioner, the names of his legal heirs, namely, his wife
and son, came to be entered in the revenue records by
way of mutation of Entry No. 181 dated 20.10.1964.
Thereafter, upon the petitioner attaining majority, the
Page 3 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/15517/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240292612020)
mother relinquished her rights in favour of the
petitioner, pursuant to which the entry recording
deletion of her name came to be mutated vide Entry No.
306 dated 05.02.1982. Thereafter, the petitioner
approached the District Collector seeking permission for
partition of the subject land, which came to be granted
vide order dated 27.04.1990. Pursuant thereto, Revenue
Entry No. 498 dated 01.05.1990 came to be mutated in
the revenue records. Consequent upon the aforesaid
partition, the subject land came to be divided into two
separate parcels, bearing Survey Nos. 111 Paiki 1 and
111 Paiki 2, respectively.
3.2. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 1, along
with one Ranchod Dankhra, with a view to undertaking
further agricultural activities, purchased another parcel
of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 55, situated at
Village Vavdi, Taluka and District Bhavnagar, from one
Bhuthabhai by way of a registered sale deed bearing
Registration No. 3456 dated 09.08.2010. Pursuant
thereto, Revenue Entry No. 1164 came to be mutated on
06.09.2010. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 submitted an
application before the Taluka Development Officer (TDO)
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/15517/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240292612020)
on 12.09.2019, seeking development permission in
respect of a portion of the subject land admeasuring
approximately 4,047 square metres out of the total area
of 19,931 square metres, for commercial purposes. Upon
completion of the requisite procedure, the said
permission came to be granted by the TDO vide order
dated 10.12.2018. Subsequently, on 16.03.2020, the
petitioner preferred an application before the District
Collector under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue
Code, seeking permission to convert the aforesaid land
admeasuring approximately 4,047 square metres from
agricultural use to non-agricultural use for commercial
purposes. The said application came to be rejected vide
order dated 29.03.2020, primarily on the ground that
petitioner No. 1 did not appear to be an agriculturist.
Thereafter, the petitioner received a show-cause notice
dated 05.06.2020 issued by the Collector, Bhavnagar,
purportedly under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land
Revenue Rules, 1972, read with Section 75 of the
Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and
Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949, alleging breach of
Section 54 of the said Ordinance. By way of the
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/15517/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240292612020)
aforesaid notice, the petitioner was called upon to
explain as to how his father had acquired the status of
an agriculturist prior to the year 1961. By the said show-
cause notice, the authority also sought to initiate suo
moto revisional proceedings in respect of Revenue Entry
Nos. 160 dated 13.03.1961, 181 dated 20.10.1964 and
498 dated 01.05.1990, inter alia, questioning the legality
of the aforesaid revenue entries. Being aggrieved by the
issuance of the aforesaid show-cause notice, the
petitioner has approached this Court by way of the
present petition.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit appearing for
the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi appearing
for the respondent–State.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the
impugned show-cause notice itself is ex facie illegal,
arbitrary and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the
respondent authority has sought to exercise suo moto
revisional powers after an inordinate and unexplained
delay of approximately 59 years from the date of
mutation of the original revenue entry, being Entry No.
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/15517/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240292612020)
160 dated 13.03.1961. It is further submitted that the
respondent authority has sought to invoke the provisions
of two distinct enactments, namely, the Gujarat Land
Revenue Rules and the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy
Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949, for
initiating the impugned proceedings, which, according
to the petitioner, is legally impermissible in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. On the aforesaid
ground also, the impugned show-cause notice deserves
to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate further
submits that the concept of an 'original agriculturist' is
not contemplated under the relevant provisions of the
Tenancy Act in the manner sought to be construed by
the respondent authority. Referring to Section 2(2) of the
Tenancy Act, it is submitted that a person who
personally cultivates the land is recognised as an
agriculturist within the meaning of the said provision. It
is submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the
fact that the petitioner and his family members have
been cultivating and possessing the subject land for
several decades. It is further contended that, without
properly appreciating the relevant revenue records and
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/15517/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240292612020)
without having the requisite jurisdiction under Section
65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, the District
Collector has sought to examine the validity of the
petitioner's status as an agriculturist at the time of
acquisition of the subject land by his father in the year
1961. Such an exercise, according to the learned
advocate, is beyond the scope of the proceedings
undertaken by the Collector under the provisions of the
Bombay Land Revenue Code. It is further submitted that
an action initiated by an authority without jurisdiction is
non est in the eyes of law and, therefore, the existence
of an alternative remedy cannot operate as an absolute
bar to the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of
the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate for the
petitioner submits that the impugned show-cause notice
is ex facie without jurisdiction, suffers from the vice of
gross and unreasonable delay and is, therefore, liable to
be quashed and set aside. In support of the aforesaid
submissions, learned advocate has placed reliance upon
the following decisions:-
a) Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin Versus Fatmabai
Page 8 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/15517/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240292612020)
Ibrahim reported in (1997) 6 SC 71
b) Amitbhai Kantilal Jayswal and Others Versus State
of Gujarat And Others in Special Civil Application
No. 14055 of 2018.
c) Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and Another
Versus Narsing Rao And Others reported in (2015) 3
SCC 695.
d) State of Punjab and Others Versus Bhatinda District
Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. reported in
(2007) 11 SCC 363.
e) Mavjibhai Dharsibhai Versus State of Gujarat in
Special Civil Application No. 3718 to 3731 of 1986.
f) State of Gujarat Versus Chaital Rashmikant Bhatt in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1478 of 2018.
6. Per contra learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi has opposed the
present petition and submitted that the same is not
maintainable at this stage, particularly when the
petitioner has approached this Court directly
challenging a show-cause notice, without availing the
opportunity of submitting an appropriate reply before
Page 9 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/15517/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240292612020)
the competent authority . It is submitted that no final
order has been passed by the respondent authority and
the petitioner has merely been called upon to explain as
to why the revenue entries referred to in the impugned
show-cause notice should not be canceled. It is,
therefore, contended that the petitioner ought to have
responded to the show-cause notice and placed the
relevant material before the competent authority instead
of invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this
Court. On this ground alone, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
6.1. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi further submits that the
subject land was originally owned by Daya Jasmat and
Talshi Jasmat, who were agriculturists. Subsequently,
the father of the petitioner purchased the subject land in
the year 1961, pursuant to which the revenue entries
came to be mutated in the name of the purchaser,
namely, Govindbhai Gandabhai. Thereafter, the names of
the legal heirs of the purchaser came to be recorded in
the revenue records vide Entry No. 181 dated
22.10.1964. Subsequently, upon execution of the
relinquishment deed and the petitioner attaining
Page 10 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/15517/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240292612020)
majority, the relevant mutation entry bearing No. 306
came to be recorded in the revenue records. It is further
submitted that the petitioner preferred an application
dated 16.03.2020 seeking permission for conversion of
the subject land from agricultural use to non-agricultural
use for commercial purposes. Upon conducting the
requisite inquiry and examining the relevant material,
the competent authority found that the father of the
petitioner was not recognised as an agriculturist at the
time of purchasing the subject land in the year 1961.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits
that the petitioner has neither furnished an appropriate
explanation before the competent authority nor
produced any documentary evidence before this Court to
establish that his father possessed the requisite status of
an agriculturist at the time of acquisition of the subject
land. In the aforesaid circumstances, no illegality or
jurisdictional error can be attributed to the respondent
authority in issuing the impugned show-cause notice
alleging breach of Section 54 of the Ordinance.
6.2. It is further contended that, in view of the alleged
illegality in the original transaction itself, the
Page 11 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/15517/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240292612020)
subsequent mutation of revenue entries would not, by
itself, confer any legal sanctity upon an otherwise invalid
transaction. Therefore, the impugned proceedings
cannot be interdicted merely on the ground of delay,
particularly when the underlying transaction is alleged
to be in violation of the statutory provisions. It is also
submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious
alternative remedy of appearing before the competent
authority and placing all relevant facts and documents
on record. In view of the availability of such alternative
remedy, no interference by this Court in exercise of its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction is warranted. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader, therefore, submits that
the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocates appearing for the respective parties
and having perused the material available on record, the
moot question arising for consideration is that “ Whether
the respondent authority could have initiated suo moto
proceedings by issuing the impugned show-cause notice
dated 05.06.2020, questioning the legality and validity of
the revenue entries bearing Nos. 160 dated 13.03.1961,
Page 12 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/15517/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240292612020)
181 dated 22.10.1964, 306 dated 05.02.1982 and 498
dated 01.05.1990, after an inordinate lapse of time,
particularly when the original transaction dates back to
the year 1961?”
7.1. To examine the aforesaid issue, this Court has
considered the decision relied upon by learned advocate
for the petitioner in the case of Mohamad Kavi
Mohamad Amin Vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim , reported in
997) 6 SCC 71 (1 . In the said decision, the Apex Court
considered the exercise of suo moto powers under
Section 84C of the Tenancy Act. The Apex Court held
that, even though the provision does not prescribe any
specific time limit for initiating such proceedings, the
statutory authority is required to exercise its powers
within a reasonable period. The Apex Court further
observed that, in the facts of the said case, the
transaction had taken place in the year 1972, whereas
the Mamlatdar initiated suo moto proceedings in
September 1973, and considered the exercise of such
powers beyond a reasonable period. A similar view has
been taken in the other decisions relied upon by learned
advocate for the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid
Page 13 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/15517/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240292612020)
settled legal position, this Court is of the opinion that
the issue relating to the exercise of suo moto powers
beyond a reasonable period is no longer res integra.
Therefore, the issuance of the impugned show-cause
notice after an inordinate delay of approximately 59
years from the date of the original revenue entry cannot
be considered as an exercise of power within a
reasonable period.
7.2. So far as the contention raised by learned AGP Mr.
Trivedi regarding the maintainability of the present
petition on the ground of availability of an alternative
remedy is concerned, this Court has also considered the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab & Ors Vs. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P.
Union Ltd reported in (2007) 11 SCC 363 , wherein
the Apex Court has held as under:
“24. Question of limitation being a jurisdictional question, the
writ petition was maintainable.
25. We are, however, not oblivious of the fact that ordinarily the
writ court would not entertain the writ application questioning
validity of a notice only, particularly, when the writ petitioner
would have an effective remedy under the Act itself. This case,
however, poses a different question. The Revisional Authority,
Page 14 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/15517/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240292612020)
being a creature of the statute, while exercising its revisional
jurisdiction, would not be able to determine as to what would be
the reasonable period for exercising the revisional jurisdiction in
terms of Section 21(1) of the Act. The High Court, furthermore in
its judgment, has referred to some binding precedents which have
been operating in the field. The High Court, therefore, cannot be
said to have committed any jurisdictional error in passing the
impugned judgment.”
7.3. In view of the aforesaid decisions and the legal
position discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the
opinion that, when the impugned show-cause notice
itself is found to be without jurisdiction on the ground of
unreasonable delay, the present case would fall within
the recognised exceptions laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Bhatinda
District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd .
(Supra). Therefore, the contention raised by the learned
Assistant Government Pleader regarding the availability
of an alternative remedy cannot be accepted. In view of
the aforesaid, the present petition deserves to be
allowed.
8. Accordingly, the impugned show-cause notice dated
05.06.2020 issued by the learned District Collector in
RTS /Revision Case No. 7 OF 2020, Bhavnagar is hereby
Page 15 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/15517/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240292612020)
quashed and set aside.
9. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:36:56 IST 2026