STATE OF GUJARAT vs RAMANBHAI SOMABHAI PRAJAPATI

C/FA/4872/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240340472001)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4872 of 2001

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
RAMANBHAI SOMABHAI PRAJAPATI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DIXA PANDYA, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Defendant(s) No. 6.1.1,7.1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for
the Defendant(s) No. 10,13,13.1,14,16,2,4,5,6,6.1,6.1.1,7,7.2,7.3,8,9
MR ANAND R PATEL(2424) for the Defendant(s) No.
1,10.1,10.2,10.3,4.1,4.2,4.3,4.4,4.5,8.1,8.2,8.3,8.4,8.5,8.6,8.7
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 11,12,13.2,13.3,15,17,3,5.1,5.2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

Date : 21/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1 The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
decree dated 01.04.2000 passed by the learned Second Joint Civil
Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad in Special Civil Suit
No.168/1998, whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiffs came to be
decreed partly and the plaintiffs were declared as the owner of the land
in question.
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:25 IST 2026

C/FA/4872/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240340472001)
2 The parties herein are referred to as per their original status
before the learned Trial Court.
3 The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that the
subject matter of the dispute involves residential land situated at Gam
Ghatlodiya, Taluka City, District Ahmedabad, falling within the limits of
Gam Panchayat, Ghatlodiya, comprising Plot Nos.3 and 4, bearing City
Survey Nos.4157 to 4169, 4173 and 4175 to 4180. The said property
was originally owned and possessed by Mr. Gandabhai Hirabhai
Parmar, as reflected in the revenue records prior to 1960–1961.
3.1 On 14.12.1966, the said property was purchased by Mr.
Sakalchand Revandas Patel, acting as the General Power of Attorney
for Mr. Shankarlal Prabhudas Patel, through a registered sale deed for a
consideration of Rs.10,000/- (registered in the Office of the Sub-
Registrar, City Ahmedabad under Registration No.13482).
Subsequently, by Resolution dated 26.04.1967 passed by the
Ghatlodiya Gram Panchayat, the land was transferred to the name of
Mr. Shankarlal Prabhudas Patel. Out of this land, seven plots (Plot
Nos.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 totaling 776 sq. yards) purchased through
Registered Sale Deed No.13483 dated 14.12.1966 for Rs.6,999/- were
transferred and distributed. Pursuant to Ghatlodiya Gram Panchayat
Resolution No.63 dated 07.12.1976, the land was mutated in the
Revenue and Gram Panchayat Records, leaving space for a road and
sub-dividing the land into 15 small plots (City Survey Nos.4162 to 4169,
4173 and 4175 to 4180). The remaining plots purchased from Mr.
Gandabhai Hirabhai Parmar were sold to the plaintiffs, who
subsequently constructed their residential houses at their own expense
and have been residing there continuously for over 30 years with their
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:25 IST 2026

C/FA/4872/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240340472001)
families, paying Panchayat taxes, education taxes, and holding valid
ration cards.
3.2 The dispute arose when respondent no.2 issued notice dated
30.11.1993 and subsequent notice dated 28.05.1998 under Section 202
of the Land Revenue Code. The notices alleged that the disputed
property belonged to the Government and the plaintiffs had taken illegal
possession thereof and directed them to vacate the property and
remove all unauthorized structures by 09.06.1998, failing which legal
action and penalties would be initiated.
3.3 In response, the plaintiffs relied upon an earlier order passed
by the Collector of Ahmedabad (Order No.L.B./L.N.D./13/73 dated
06.06.1973), wherein it was conclusively held that the disputed land
was not the Government property but was under the private,
independent ownership of Mr. Gandabhai Hirabhai Parmar. Despite
issuing statutory notices on 04.04.1994, the respondent no.2 gave a
false reply, while respondent no.1 had not given any reply.
Consequently, the plaintiffs filed the present suit praying for a
declaration of ownership based on the legal registered sale deed dated
14.12.1966, or alternatively, by virtue of adverse possession due to
open and continuous occupation for over 30 years. The Plaintiffs also
sought a permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their agents
or servants from dispossessing them or removing their structures from
the disputed land.
4 Having been served with the summons of the suit, the defendants
have filed the written statement at Exh.13, thereby explicitly denying
and disputing all claims, assertions, and factual pleadings set forth in
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:25 IST 2026

C/FA/4872/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240340472001)
the Plaint.
4.1 The respondents contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs
seeking public interest remedies and permanent injunction is completely
false, baseless and legally unmaintainable. According to the
respondents, the disputed property belongs to the Government and has
been explicitly reserved for Government ownership. They asserted that
the plaintiffs illegally encroached the Government land and carried out
unauthorized constructions without obtaining any valid permission.
Consequently, the order passed under Section 61 is fair lawful and
proper.
4.2 The respondents further highlighted that the Collector of
Ahmedabad had previously passed order on 19.06.1981, in L.B. Appeal
Nos.18/80, 59/80, 60/80, 61/80, 62/80, 58/80, and 57/80, wherein it was
conclusively held that the disputed property is owned by the
Government and does not belong to the plaintiffs. Despite being served
with the eviction order under Section 61 on 22.06.1989, the plaintiffs
failed to file any appeal against it. As a result, the respondents argued
that the plaintiffs cannot claim ownership by virtue of adverse
possession.
4.3 Furthermore, the respondents submitted that the present suit
was instituted purely as an afterthought to escape from the statutory
notice issued under Section 202 on 28.05.1998, prevent legal
proceedings from the Government's side and to cause unnecessarily
delay the eviction process. They argued that the plaint is not
maintainable in law because the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the statutory
appellate remedy available under Section 9 of the Bombay Land
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:25 IST 2026

C/FA/4872/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240340472001)
Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957. On these grounds, the respondents prayed
for the total rejection of the suit under Sections 61 and 202 of the Land
Revenue Act.
5 Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial
Court has framed the following issues at Exh.22:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are legal owners or
occupiers over the suit properties?
2. Whether plaintiffs sell-document of dated 14.12.1966 is
legal and valid too?
3. Whether plaintiffs prove that defendants are not trying to
dispossess them from the suit property illegally and forcibly
too?
4. Whether plaintiffs prove that defendant no.2's notice dated
28.05.1998 u/s. 202 of L.R. Code, is illegal one?
5. Whether defendants prove that plaintiffs suit is false & not
maintainable?
6. Whether defendants prove that suit land is government
land?
7. Whether defendants prove that plaintiffs are the illegal
possessor and they have made encroachment over the suit
govt land?
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:25 IST 2026

C/FA/4872/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240340472001)
8. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for reliefs?
9. What order and decree ?
6 The learned Trial Court had returned the following findings on the
aforesaid issues:-
1. In Affirmative
2. In Affirmative
3. In Affirmative
4. In Affirmative
5. In Negative
6. In Negative
7. In Negative
8. As per final order
9. As per final order
7 In order to prove their respective versions, the parties have led
oral as well as documentary evidence on record.
8 Having considered the oral as well as documentary evidence on
record and the submissions canvassed by the learned counsels for the
respective parties, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the
plaintiffs partly.
9 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
decree, the original defendants preferred the captioned appeal before
this Court, thereby challenging the impugned judgment and decree.
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:25 IST 2026

C/FA/4872/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240340472001)
10 Heard learned counsels for the parties.
11 Ms. Dixa Pandya, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the original
defendants/appellants herein vehemently submitted that the plaintiffs
are the encroachers of the land in question and have illegally
encroached upon Government land. She further submitted that the
notices came to be issued to Gandabhai Hirabhai Parmar. She
submitted that despite the service of notice, Gandabhai Hirabhai
Parmar did not appear before the competent authority, therefore, the
order came to be passed against Gandabhai Hirabhai Parmar. She
further submitted that earlier the area fell under the jurisdiction of the
Gram Panchayat but in the year 1979, the area came within the
jurisdiction of City Survey. Accordingly, the City Survey mutated the land
in the name of the Government. She submitted that despite service of
several notices, the plaintiffs have chosen not to appear before the
competent authority, therefore, the competent authority passed the
order for removal of encroachment. Learned AGP submitted that the
plaintiffs are the encroachers of the land, therefore, the learned Trial
Court ought to have dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs; however, the
learned Trial Court, ignoring the material on record showing that the
land stood in the name of the Government, decreed the suit. Therefore,
she submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the
learned Trial Court is perverse and liable to be set aside.
12 Per contra, Mr. Anand R. Patel, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of original plaintiffs vehemently submitted that initially Gandabhai
Hirabhai Parmar was the owner of the property in question. He sold the
said property to Shankarlal Prabhudas Patel by way of executing the
registered sale deed in the year 1966 and thereafter, the plaintiffs have
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:25 IST 2026

C/FA/4872/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240340472001)
purchased the land in the very same year by way of executing the
registered sale deed. Thereafter, on the basis of the sale deed, the land
came to be mutated in the names of the plaintiffs in the records of Gram
Panchayat. He submitted that the Gram Panchayat, by passing the
resolution, mutated the said land in question in the names of plaintiffs
and the revenue records have been duly proved on record. He
submitted that thereafter the area where the land is situated came
within the jurisdiction of City Survey and the records were handed over
to the City Survey. Though the City Survey was well aware that the land
stood in the names of plaintiffs, but no notices were issued under F.I.
Case No.2/72 to the plaintiffs and instead notices were allegedly came
to be issued to Gandabhai Hirabhai Parmar, who already sold the land
in the year 1966 to one-Shankarlal Prabhudas Patel. He further
submitted that the entries in the revenue record came to be passed
without serving the notice to the plaintiffs in violation of the principles of
natural justice. He further submitted that even otherwise, the Collector
himself admitted in the letter dated 06.06.1973 that out of the total land,
the land admeasuring 1,000 sq. yards was of private ownership of
Gandabhai Hirabhai Parmar and the land admeasuring 1,238 ½ sq.
yards was of Government ownership. He submitted that the defendant
could not prove on record that the plaintiffs are the encroachers,
therefore, the captioned appeal is liable to be dismissed.
13 Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the
original defendants have challenged the impugned judgment and
decree on the ground that the plaintiffs are encroachers of the land.
14 In order to appreciate the submissions canvassed by the learned
Page 8 of 13
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:25 IST 2026

C/FA/4872/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240340472001)
counsels for the parties, the oral as well as documentary evidence are
required to be examined. In order to prove their case, the plaintiff-
Ramanbhai Somabhai Prajapati entered into witness box and his
deposition came to be recorded at Exh.129. He deposed that the total
land admeasuring 999 sq. yards, comprised in City Survey Nos.4159,
4173 and 4175, belongs to the plaintiffs. He also deposed that the
original owner, namely Gandabhai Hirabhai Parmar, sold the said land,
which was subsequently purchased by Shankarlal Prabhudas Patel in
the year 1966 and thereafter the said land was mutated in the name of
said Shankarlal Prabhudas Patel and thereafter he sold the said land to
the plaintiffs by registered sale deed. Thereafter, the land was
subdivided into plots and accordingly, after seeking necessary
permission from the Gram Panchayat, the construction was raised.
Further, the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, the land stood
mutated in the names of plaintiffs. He also deposed that they have not
received any notice from any revenue authority. He was cross-examined
by learned AGP for the State before the learned Trial Court. In his cross-
examination, he denied having received any notice. He also denied that
they have raised the construction on the Government land. He also
denied that they are in illegal possession. The defendant has also
examined one-Ramanbhai N. Patel as PW-1 at Exh.132. In
examination-in-chief, he deposed that he is performing his duty as City
Survey Superintendent since 19.06.1998. He deposed that the land
comprised in Survey Nos.4157 to 4169, 4173 and 4175 to 4180,
admeasuring 754.82 sq. mtrs., situated at Ghatlodia belongs to
Government and the plaintiffs had encroached the said land. The inquiry
was conducted under Sections 37(2) of the Code and thereafter, the
land was mutated in the name of the Government. In the cross-
examination, he admitted that the plaintiffs are residing on the same
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:25 IST 2026

C/FA/4872/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240340472001)
land for the last 15 to 20 years. He denied having knowledge that 1,000
sq. yards of the land belongs to Gandabhai Hirabhai Parmar. He also
admitted that before 1979, the land records were maintained by
Mamlatdar and house tax was collected by the Gram Panchayat. He
also admitted that the notices were not served upon the other person.
15 It emerges from the record that it is undisputed that where the
land is situated was earlier within the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat
and in the year 1979, it was transferred to City Survey. It appears from
the record that the Aakarni Patrak prepared for year 1962-1963 would
show that the land in question stood in the name of Gandabhai Hirabhai
Parmar. The Aakarni Patrak prepared for the year 1965-1966-1967
would show that the land stood mutated in the name of Sakalchand
Revandas Patel as per resolution of the Gram Panchayat passed in the
meeting held on 26.04.1967. The plaintiffs have also proved on record
the resolution at Exhs.30 and 31 passed by the Gram Panchayat
mutating the land in the names of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also
proved copy of sale deed at Exhs.127 and 128. Further, Ghatlodia
Gram Panchayat has also collected the house tax from the plaintiffs.
These documents depict that the land was purchased by them from
Gandabhai Hirabhai Parmar and the same stood mutated in their name
by the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter the area came within the jurisdiction
of City Survey. From the perusal of Exh.133, it appears that the land
was mutated in the name of Government. It also emerges from the
record that the show cause notices were issued to Gandabhai Hirabhai
Parmar, though the land was already transferred in the name of
Shankarlal Prabhudas Patel in revenue records. It also emerges from
the record that the competent authority has passed the order for
removal of encroachment. Scanning the entire record and pleadings of
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:25 IST 2026

C/FA/4872/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240340472001)
the parties, it emerges that the plaintiffs are the owner of some portion
of land and the Government is also the owner of some portion of the
land, as reveals from Exh.32 i.e. the order of Collector, which reads as
under:-
“The Judgment and order dated 21.02.1972 passed by the Mamlatdar
City Taluka in F.I. Case No.2/72 declaring the Village site lands of Village
Ghatlodia in City Taluka measuring 1000 sq. yards as of the private
ownership of the claimant Gandabhai Hirabhai and 1238 ½ sq. yards as
of the Government ownership is hereby acquiesced in.”
16 From this order, it is apparent that out of the total land parcel
admeasuring 2,238 ½ sq. yards, 1000 sq. yards belonged to Gandabhai
Hirabhai Parmar, which was subsequently sold by him to Shankarlal
Prabhudas Patel. It emerges from para 5 of the plaint, the plaintiffs are
claiming the ownership of the total land admeasuring 754.81 sq. mtrs.
The details of the same are reproduced hereinunder:-
Sr.
No.
Name of Plaintiffs City Survey
Area
No.
1. Ramanbhai Somabhai 4159
46.00 sq. mtrs.
4173
24.70 sq. mtrs.
4175
19.37 sq. mtrs.
2. Kanaiyalal Kacharabhai 4160 52.32 sq. mtrs.
3. Rupesh Ashokkumar Raval 4161 50.08 sq. mtrs.
4. Somabhai Ambaram
Prajapati
4162 44.26 sq. mtrs.
5. Maneklal Boghabhai
Prajapati
4163 42.18 sq. mtrs.
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:25 IST 2026

C/FA/4872/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240340472001)
6. Deceased Bababhai
Somabhai
4164 41.06 sq. mtrs.
7. Revaben wd/o. Shankarlal 4165 42.18 sq. mtrs.
8. Ranchhodbhai
Parshottambhai Prajapati
4166 42.18 sq. mtrs.
9. Iswarbhai Harjibhai
Prajapati
4167 42.18 sq. mtrs.
10. Dwarkabhai Joitabhai
Prajapati
4168 42.18 sq. mtrs.
11. Ratanben Mohanalal 4169 35.43 sq. mtrs.
12. Ramanbhai Maganbhai
Prajapati
4176 35.00 sq. mtrs.
13. Deceased Girdharlal
Parshottamdas
4177 35.00 sq. mtrs.
14. Revabhai Kalidas Prajapati 4178 41.83 sq. mtrs.
15. Arunaben Kanaiyalal
Prajapati
4179 39.93 sq. mtrs.
16. Thanaji Genaji Prajapati 4180 41.53 sq. mtrs.
17. Shakriben Kantilal Patel 4157 37.34 sq. mtrs.
Total 754.81 sq. mtrs.
17 Thus, it is the admitted case of the defendants that 1,000 sq.
yards of land belonged to Gandabhai Hirabhai Parmar as his private
property and still the plaintiffs are claiming the lesser area than referred
to above in the letter of Collector at Exh.32. The private ownership of
this 1,000 sq. yards had already been admitted and affirmed by the
Collector vide its order dated 06.06.1973. Further, the defendants have
failed to prove on record as to which specific portion of the Government
land was allegedly encroached upon by the plaintiffs. When it is the
admitted case of the defendants that 1,000 sq. yards of land belonged
to the predecessor of the plaintiffs, which subsequently came to be sold
to the plaintiffs by executing the registered sale deed and the ownership
of the land was transferred in the revenue records by the resolution of
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:25 IST 2026

C/FA/4872/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240340472001)
the Gram Panchayat, in view of the fact the defendants can not say that
the plaintiffs have encroached upon the Government land, as they are
claiming the lesser area than that the area admitted by the Collector in
the letter at Exh.32.
18 In view of the above discussion, the defendants have miserably
failed to prove that the plaintiffs have encroached the land of the
Government. Therefore, the captioned appeal is devoid of merits and
liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged
and the impugned judgment and decree is upheld. No order as to costs.
19 Pending Application, if any, disposed of accordingly.
20 Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to the
concerned Court forthwith.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
Harshit
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:25 IST 2026