MAFATLAL MAGANLAL THROUGH HIS HEIRS vs SHANKARLAL JOITARAM PATEL,SINCE DECEASED,THROUGH HIS HEIRS
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
Reserved On : 10/03/2026
Pronounced On : 25/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 82 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/11464/2010
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 82 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
MAFATLAL MAGANLAL THROUGH HIS HEIRS & ORS.
Versus
SHANKARLAL JOITARAM PATEL,SINCE DECEASED,THROUGH HIS
HEIRS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ASIM PANDYA, LD. SR.ADVOCATE WITH MR SHYAM M
SHAH(11348) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.1.1,1.1.2,1.1.3,1.1.4,1.1.5,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
MS. HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR DR SHAH(1394) for the Respondent(s) No.
1.2.1,1.2.2,1.2.3,1.2.4,1.2.5,1.3,1.4.2,1.4.3,1.4.4,1.4.5,1.4.6,1.4.7,1.4.8,1.4.9,
1.5.1,1.5.2,1.6,1.6.10,1.6.12,1.6.13
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY)
1. Heard Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior advocate with
Mr. Shyam M. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant and
Ms. Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader
Page 1 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, and Mr. D. R. Shah,
learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1.2.1-1.2.5, 1.3,
1.4.2-1.4.5, and 1.5.1-1.5.2.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order of the
learned Single Judge in the writ petition, in which, the orders
of the Deputy Collector dated 09.09.1991 confirmed by order
dated 05.01.2007 of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the
order dated 20.07.2010 in a Review Application against the
order dated 05.01.2007, also of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal,
have merged.
3. Factual matrix, in nuce , may be set out as under:-
3.1 The matter arises from the application by the original
respondent under section 32-O of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “ the
Tenancy Act, 1948 ”) before Mamlatdar & Agricultural Lands
Tribunal (ALT) asserting a claim that the respondent was
dispossessed from the tenancy and on the basis a purported
Entry in the 7/12 extract for one year which was later
bracketed by the Talati, which ultimately led to passing of the
impugned orders by the learned Single Judge of this Court
Page 2 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
and the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT) in Revision
proceedings.
3.2 The dispute traces its origin to an application being
Tenancy Case No. 65 of 1975 preferred by (deceased)
respondents, Shankarbhai Joitaram Patel and Amratlal
Shankarbhai, wherein it was alleged that they had been
dispossessed from the land in question. The said application,
dated 01.09.1975, was instituted under Section 32-O of the
Tenancy Act, 1948, inter alia seeking restoration of possession
and initiation of appropriate proceedings against the
landlords.
3.3 Pursuant thereto, the Mamlatdar and ALT initiated
proceedings under the aforesaid provision and, upon
adjudication, declared the applicants-predecessor of the
respondents to be tenants in respect of Survey No. 524
admeasuring 1 Acre and 18 Gunthas. It was further recorded
that the said applicants had cultivated the land during the
period from 1957 to 1965.
3.4 Being aggrieved by the said determination, the present
Page 3 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
appellants-petitioners preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 873 of
1978 before the Deputy Collector (Appeals), Mehsana. By
order dated 24.07.1980, the appellate authority remanded the
matter to the Mamlatdar for reconsideration. Upon remand,
the Mamlatdar proceeded with the matter; however, on
account of the absence of the appellants-petitioners, the
proceedings culminated in an ex parte order dated
07.03.1981, whereby the purchase price came to be fixed.
3.5 Aggrieved by the ex-parte fixation of price, the
appellants-petitioners preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 180 of
1981 before the Deputy Collector, Mehsana. The said appeal
came to be dismissed by order dated 20.06.1982.
3.6 Thereafter, the appellants-petitioners invoked the
revisional jurisdiction of the GRT by filing Revision
Application No. TEN/BA/1204/1982. The Tribunal, by order
dated 23.03.1983, allowed the revision, set aside the orders of
the authorities below, and remanded the matter to the
Mamlatdar for fresh inquiry in light of the observations made
therein.
Page 4 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
3.7 Upon such remand, the Mamlatdar and ALT registered
the proceedings as Tenancy Case No. 172 of 1983 and, after
appreciation of the evidence on record, by order dated
20.08.1985, concluded that neither tenancy was established
nor was there any unlawful dispossession. Challenging the
said findings, the respondents preferred Tenancy Appeal No.
280 of 1985 before the Prant Officer, Mehsana, who, by order
dated 18.12.1989, once again remanded the matter to the
Mamlatdar.
3.8 The appellants-petitioners, being dissatisfied with the
order of remand dated 18.12.1989, approached the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal by way of Revision Application No. 285 of
1986. The Tribunal directed the Deputy Collector to decide
the matter afresh on merits after due appreciation of the
evidence on record. In compliance thereof, the Deputy
Collector (Land Reforms), Mehsana, adjudicated Tenancy
Appeal No. 70 of 1990 and, by order dated 09.09.1991, held
that the respondent Shankarlal Joitaram had established his
status as a tenant. Consequently, it was observed that the only
surviving issue was the determination of purchase price under
Section 32(g) of the Tenancy Act, 1948.
Page 5 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
3.9 The appellants-petitioners, once again aggrieved,
preferred Revision Application No. TEN/BA/932/1991 before
the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order
dated 05.01.2007, rejected the revision and affirmed the order
dated 09.09.1991 passed by the Deputy Collector.
3.10 Subsequently, the appellants-petitioners filed a Review
Application being No. C.A./12/2007 before the Tribunal. The
Tribunal, by order dated 20.07.2010, dismissed the review
application, holding the same to be not maintainable in the
absence of any error apparent on the face of the record.
3.11 Thereafter, the appellants-petitioners invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.
11464 of 2010 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, seeking, inter alia , quashing and setting aside of the
aforesaid orders and stay of their execution. The learned
Single Judge, by judgment dated 04.11.2025, dismissed the
said petition.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
Page 6 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
04.11.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11464 of
2010, the appellants have preferred the present Letters
Patent Appeal.
5. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants, at the very outset, took the court
through the documents under which the respondents were
seeking to be declared tenants. To this end, our attention was
invited to village Form No.7, 7A and 12 at page Nos.165 to
170 of the petition. At the very outset, we could observe from
a very close scrutiny of the aforesaid document that the name
of the person in possession (kabjedar) is shown to be ‘Mafatlal
Maganlal’ and for the years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57, it
is indicated that the land is being cultivated by “self” (pote),
however, solely for the year 1957-58, in place of “self”, there
is an overwriting to indicate the name of Shankarbhai
Joitaram Patel. Once again, we find, for the year 1958-59 till
1963-64, the cultivator reverts back to “self”.
5.1. Thus, it is the primary contention of Mr. Pandya, learned
senior counsel, that on the strength of an interpolation of
records only for the year 1957-58, where the name of
Page 7 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
Shankarbhai Joitaram Patel has been included in place of the
original person in possession (kabjedar) Mafatlal Maganlal,
who has been shown to be cultivating the land throughout, the
predecessors-in-interest to the present respondents have
staked a claim being declared a tenant.
5.2. Mr. Pandya, learned senior counsel further pointed out
that the significance of the interpolation in the year 1957-58 is
to be noted because under the provisions of the Tenancy Act,
1948, until and unless a person has been actually cultivating
the land on tillers’ day i.e., 01.04.1957, the said person would
not get any right to be declared a tenant.
6. In the aforesaid context, Mr. Pandya, learned senior
counsel took us through the detailed findings of the order of
the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 23.03.1983, which has
categorically recorded the following :-
“7. Without entering into the merits of the case, on
perusing the file of the Mamalatdar, one thing appears
so clear that the applicant – landlord has not been given
an opportunity for leading oral evidence in the
impugned inquiry held by the Mamlatdar at the initial
stage or at the second time, while he preceded to hold
further inquiry in presence of the order directed by Dy.
Collector in Tenancy Appeal No.323 of 1975 dated
21.07.1982. Thus, the Mamalatdar was at all not
justified in not giving full and sufficient opportunity of
Page 8 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
being heard to the applicant – landlord. Shri Desai has
urged that the deposition of the applicant has not at all
been recorded in the impugned inquiry held by the
Mamlatdar or that before record directed by the Dy.
Collector or prior that. While the Mamlatdar initially
held inquiry which cannot be said to be legally and
validly in the eye of law, inasmuch as, the concerned
person is required to be heard in any judicial inquiry
before passing any judicial order either in his favour or
against him. The learned advocate Shri Parmar also
agreed that the learned advocate Shri Desai on this
matter. In that view of the fact, the matter requires to
be remanded to the Mamlatdar for fresh inquiry and
hearing to be given to the applicant – landlord and that
point, the mater requires to be remanded to the
Mamlatdar who shall provide sufficient opportunity to
both the parties for leading oral and documentary
evidence. However, while I am inclined to refer the
matter to the Mamlatdar I may also mention here that
the Mamlatdar is directed to examine the village Talati
of the said village who has entered the name of the
opponent as a cultivator in the year 1957-58 as to how
his name came to be written only for one year in village
form no.7/12 which is written, as can be seen, behind
the back of Page-11 of the Mamlatdar’s file. Thus, in
view of the facts stated here above, I pass the following
order.
8. This revision application is allowed by setting
aside the orders passed by both the Court below and the
matter is remanded back to the Mamlardar for further
fresh inquiry in accordance with law and procedure
made thereunder, as well as in the light of observations
made in this judgment.”
7. Mr. Pandya, learned senior counsel, thereafter took us
through the well-reasoned order under remand dated
20.08.1985 passed by the Additional Mamlatdar and
Krushipanch, Mehsana, who rejected the application dated
01.09.1975 in favour of the appellants. According to Mr.
Page 9 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
Pandya, learned senior advocate, the Prant Officer, by his
order dated 10.02.1986, had wrongly interfered with the
reasoned order of the Additional Mamlatdar and, therefore,
the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, for the second time, by order
dated 18.12.1989, after passing caustic observations against
the Prant Officer, had set aside the order dated 10.02.1986
and remanded the matter back to the Prant Officer to render a
reasoned judgment based upon the evidence and the
applicable law. Thereafter, the Deputy Collector, in Tenancy
Appeal No. 70 of 1990, by order dated 09.09.1991, declared
the respondents’ predecessor-in-interest to be the tenant.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred yet
another revision application before the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal, which, by order dated 05.01.2007, this time
confirmed the order dated 09.09.1991 passed by the Deputy
Collector. This prompted the appellants to file a review
application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which was
held to be not maintainable by order dated 20.07.2007.
9. The writ petition arises from the aforesaid order dated
20.07.2010 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Mr.
Page 10 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
Pandya, learned senior counsel, has specifically submitted
that it will be seen from the records that the respondents
already owned Survey Nos. 523 and 525, in which they were
declared tenants because they had filed appropriate
applications to be declared as tenants, whereas, in respect of
the appellants’ land, i.e., Survey No. 524, the respondents did
not file any application till 1975. It is, therefore, plainly
apparent that the application filed in the year 1975 was by
way of an afterthought on the part of the respondents to make
their lands, being Survey Nos. 523 and 525, contiguous by
ejecting the appellants from Survey No. 524.
10. Mr. Pandya, learned senior advocate, further submitted
that the entire findings against the present appellants are
based on the premise that Joitaram was a “hidden tenant” and
that the Talati could not have made a handwritten correction
in the record, on his own motion, in the year 1975 to suddenly
introduce the name of Joitaram in the year 1957-58,
particularly when the name of the appellants had continued
from 1952 onwards and these very respondents had laid
timely claims in respect of the other survey numbers and not
against the appellants’ land in Survey No. 524.
Page 11 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
11. According to Mr. Pandya, learned senior counsel, the
findings of the learned Single Judge impugned before us in
Paragraph No. ‘8’ would only show that the learned Single
Judge has mechanically agreed with the findings of the Deputy
Collector in his order dated 09.09.1991 and the order of the
learned Tribunal impugned before him.
12. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants, submitted that the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside for various
reasons. According to Mr. Pandya, learned counsel, the
learned Single Judge has merely reiterated the orders under
challenge before him without considering that no tenancy or
dispossession from the land in question was proved by the
respondents. The original application filed in the year 1975
was for restoration of possession to the respondents under
Section 32-O of the Tenancy Act, 1948, and not for declaration
of tenancy. By way of the orders impugned before the learned
Single Judge, the respondents were declared tenants. For this
reason alone, the writ petition should have succeeded. The
authorities below have wholly erred in converting an
Page 12 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
application under Section 32-O of the Tenancy Act, 1948, into
proceedings under Section 32-G of the Tenancy Act, 1948 and
proceeding further to fix the purchase price. According to Mr.
Pandya, learned counsel, the above-noted aspect has not been
addressed by the learned Single Judge.
13. As against this, it is the case of the respondents as put
forth by Mr. D.R.Shah, learned advocate, that the disputed
land was handed over by Maganbhai to Shankarbhai for
cultivation in or about the year 1954 and that, upon a
personal visit to the site, the Talati recorded the name of
Shankarbhai in the revenue record for the years 1957-1958.
However, on a pointed query being put by this Court as to
why, if the respondents were indeed cultivating the land since
1954 and the revenue entry at page No. ‘166’ reflected the
years 1957-1958, no claim asserting tenancy rights in respect
of the land in question was made before the competent
authority in or around the year 1955 and why such claim
came to be asserted only in the year 1975, Mr. Shah was
unable to furnish any satisfactory explanation to the query
posed by this Court.
Page 13 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
14. A further pointed query was put to Mr. Shah to the effect
that there was admittedly no requirement of making any entry
reflecting the status of a hidden tenant (hidden ganotiya), nor
was there any contemporaneous material available on record
evidencing cultivation of the subject land by him in the
capacity of a hidden tenant (hidden ganotiya). Despite
claiming such status, he admittedly remained undisclosed till
the year 1975 and did not assert any tenancy rights over the
subject land during the period from 1957 to 1975, more
particularly when, during the same period, he had asserted
tenancy rights in respect of another parcel of land situated in
the very same village.
A NALYSIS & F INDINGS :-
15. It emerges from the record of the case as well as the
submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties that the present dispute has traversed
up and down before different authorities and fora at various
stages. The proceedings reveal repeated adjudication,
remand, reconsideration and challenge by the parties from
time to time. For the sake of clarity, continuity and proper
appreciation of the controversy involved in the present
proceedings, which have gone back and forth may broadly be
Page 14 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
summarized in the following manner:-
15.1 The litigation commenced on 01.09.1975, when
deceased Shankarbhai Joitaram and Amratlal Shankarbhai
instituted proceedings under Section 32-O of the Tenancy Act,
1948 by filing Tenancy Case No. 65 of 1975 before the
Mamlatdar & ALT, Mehsana, which is produced at Annexure–
A (SCA, Page No. 25). In the said application, the respondents
alleged that their possession of the land bearing Survey No.
524 admeasuring 1 Acre and 18 Gunthas had been taken away
by the landlords and sought restoration of possession.
Significantly, the application did not disclose the date on
which possession was allegedly taken, the persons in whose
presence such dispossession had occurred, nor any
particulars regarding payment of rent or crop share so as to
establish the alleged tenancy.
15.2 Thereafter, by order dated 22.12.1977 passed in the
aforesaid tenancy proceedings, the Mamlatdar & ALT,
exercising powers under Section 32-O of the Tenancy Act,
1948, declared the respondents to be tenants of the land in
question. The said order is annexed at Annexure-B (Page No.
Page 15 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
29). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
declaration, the petitioners preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 873
of 1978 before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector, by
order dated 24.07.1980, annexed at Annexure–C (Page No.
36), allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the
Mamlatdar for fresh consideration and adjudication in
accordance with law.
16. Pursuant to the remand order passed by the Deputy
Collector, the proceedings were reconsidered by the
Mamlatdar & ALT in Tenancy Case No. 65 of 1975. However,
by order dated 07.03.1981, annexed at Annexure–D (Page No.
45), the Mamlatdar proceeded ex parte on the premise that
the petitioners had remained absent and consequently fixed
the purchase price under the Act. It was the specific case of
the petitioners that no notice of the remand proceedings had
in fact been served upon them and, therefore, the ex parte
order came to be passed without affording any effective
opportunity of hearing.
16.1 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid ex parte order, the
petitioners preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 180 of 1981 before
Page 16 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
the Deputy Collector, Mehsana. The said appeal, however,
came to be dismissed by order dated 20.06.1982, annexed at
Annexure–E (Page No. 51). Challenging the dismissal of the
appeal, the petitioners thereafter preferred Revision
Application No. TEN/BA/1204/1982 before the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 23.03.1983,
annexed at Annexure–F (Page No. 59), allowed the revision
application, set aside the orders passed by the authorities
below and remanded the matter once again to the Mamlatdar
for conducting a fresh inquiry in light of the observations
made by the Tribunal, particularly as recorded in paragraph
No. ‘7’ of the order at Page No. 62.
17. Upon remand by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the
Mamlatdar & ALT registered the proceedings as Tenancy
Case No. 172 of 1983 and undertook a detailed inquiry after
framing issues and recording evidence. Ultimately, by a
detailed order dated 20.08.1985, annexed at Annexure–G
(Page No. 70), the Mamlatdar & ALT came to the categorical
conclusion that no tenancy whatsoever had been established
by the respondents and further held that there was no
evidence to show that possession had been unlawfully taken
Page 17 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
away from them.
17.1 The respondents, being dissatisfied with the aforesaid
findings, preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 280 of 1985 before
the Prant Officer, Mehsana. By order dated 18.12.1989,
annexed at Annexure–H (Page No. 95), the Prant Officer
remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar once again. The
petitioners, challenging the said remand order, preferred
Revision Application No. 285 of 1986 before the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated
18.12.1989, annexed at Annexure–I (Page No. 102), directed
the Deputy Collector to decide the matter on merits after
proper appreciation of the evidence available on record.
18. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal, the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Mehsana,
heard Tenancy Appeal No. 70 of 1990 and, by order dated
09.09.1991, annexed at Annexure–J (Page No. 112), concluded
that respondent Shankarlal Joitaram had succeeded in
establishing his tenancy rights over the land in question. The
Deputy Collector further held that the only surviving issue
was determination of the purchase price under Section 32-G
Page 18 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
of the Tenancy Act, 1948.
18.1 The petitioners, challenging the aforesaid order,
preferred Revision Application No. TEN/BA/932/1991 before
the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated
05.01.2007, annexed at Annexure–K (Page No. 120), rejected
the revision application and confirmed the order dated
09.09.1991 passed by the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal
No. 70 of 1990. The petitioners thereafter preferred Review
Application No. C.A./12/2007 before the Tribunal pointing out
various procedural irregularities; however, the said review
application came to be rejected by order dated 20.07.2010,
annexed at Annexure–L (Page No. 133), on the ground that no
error apparent on the face of the record was made out and
that the review was not maintainable.
18.2 Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners instituted
Special Civil Application No. 11464 of 2010 before this Court.
In the said proceedings, this Court issued notice on
22.09.2010 and granted ad interim relief directing
maintenance of status quo, which order came to be continued
on 15.10.2010. Ultimately, by judgment and order dated
Page 19 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
04.11.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said
Special Civil Application. It is against the aforesaid judgment
and order that the present Letters Patent Appeal has been
preferred.
19. From the perusal of the records, we find that we have
been called upon to effectively decide the correctness of the
view of the learned Single Judge who has approved the set of
views in favour of the respondents and against the appellants
in view of the multiple instances in which the matter has been
decided one way or the other and remanded for fresh
adjudication and/or recording of reasons, etc.
20. It will be essential, in the context of the submissions
made by the learned Counsel before us to take note of the
scheme of Chapter III of the Tenancy Act,1948 pertaining to
Special Right & Privileges of Tenants and Provisions for
Distribution of Land for Personal Cultivation. The following
provisions, in particular deserve to be noted, as under :-
“ Section 32 . Tenants deemed to have purchased land
on tillers' day.
- [(1)]On the first day of April 1957 (hereinafter referred
to as "the tillers' day") every tenant shall, [subject to
the other provisions of] the next succeeding sections,
Page 20 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
be deemed to have purchased from his landlord, free of
all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said day,
the land held by him as tenant, if-
(a)such tenant is a permanent tenant thereof and
cultivates land personally;
(b)such tenant is not a permanent tenant but cultivates
the land leased personally; and
(i)the landlord has not given notice of termination of his
tenancy under section 31; or
(ii)notice has been given under section 31, but the
landlord has not applied to the Mamlatdar, on or before
the 31st day of March 1957 under section 29 for
obtaining possession of the land ; [or]
[(iii) the landlord has not terminated his tenancy on any
of the grounds specified in section 14, or has so
terminated the tenancy but has not applied to the
Mamlatdar on or before the 31st day of March, 1957
under section 29 for obtaining possession of the land:]
Provided that if an application made by the landlord
under section 29 for obtaining possession of the land
has been rejected by the Mamlatdar or by the Collector
in appeal or in revision by the [Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal] [These words were substituted for the words
'Bombay Revenue Tribunal' by the Gujarat Adaptation
of Laws (State and Concurrent Subjects) Order,
1960.] under the provision of this Act, the tenant shall
be deemed to have purchased the land on the date on
which the final order of rejection is passed. The date on
which the final order of rejection is passed is
hereinafter referred to as "the postponed date":
[Provided further that the tenant of a landlord who is
entitled to the benefit of the proviso to sub-section (3)
of section 31 shall be deemed to have purchased the
land on the 1st day of April, 1958, if no separation of his
share has been effected before the date mentioned in
that proviso.]
(1A) [ (a) Where a tenant, on account of his eviction
from the land by the landlord, before the 1st April,
1957, is not in possession of the land on the said date
but has made or makes an application for possession of
the land under sub-section (1) of section 29 within the
period specified in that sub-section, then if the
application is allowed by the Mamlatdar, or as the case
Page 21 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
may be, in appeal by the Collector or in revision by the
[Gujarat Revenue Tribunal] [Sub-section (1A) was
inserted by Bombay 63 of 1958, s 5(2).], he shall be
deemed to have purchased the land on the date on
which the final order allowing the application is passed.
(b) Where such tenant has not made an application for
possession within the period specified in sub-section (1)
of section 29 or the application made by him is finally
rejected under this Act, and the land is held by any
other person as tenant on the expiry of the said period
or on the date of the final rejection of the application,
such other person shall be deemed to have purchased
the land on the date of the expiry of the said period or
as the case may be, on the date of the final rejection of
the application.]
(1B) [ Where a tenant who was in possession of land on
the appointed day and who, on account of his being
dispossessed of such land or any part thereof by the
landlord at any time before the specified date otherwise
than in the manner provided in section 29 or any other
provision of this Act, is not in possession of such and or
any part thereof and such land or part thereof is in the
possession of the landlord or his successor-in-interest
on the said date and such land or part thereof is not put
to a non-agricultural use on or before the said date,
then the Mamlatdar shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in the said section 29 or any other provision
of this Act either suo motu or on an application of the
tenant made within the prescribed period hold an
inquiry and direct that such land or as the case may be,
part thereof shall be taken from the possession of the
landlord or, as the case may be, his successor in
interest, and shall be restored, to the tenant; and
thereafter, the provisions of this section and sections
32A to 32R (both inclusive) shall, so far as they may be
applicable, apply thereto, subject to the modification
that the tenant shall be deemed to have purchased such
land or part thereof on the date on which such land or,
as the case may be, part thereof is restored to him:
Provided that the tenant shale be entitled to restoration
of land or part thereof, as the case may be, under this
sub-section only [if he gives an undertaking in writing
within such period as may be prescribed] [Sub-section
(IB) was inserted by Gujarat 5 of 1973, section 8.] to
cultivate it personally and of so much thereof as
Page 22 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
together with the other land held by him as owner or
tenant shall not exceed the ceiling area:
[Provided further that -
(i) if the tenant fails to give such undertaking within
such prescribed period, or if the tenant, after giving
such undertaking, refuses to accept the tenancy or
possession of the lands, the land the possession of
which the landlord or as the case may be, his successor-
in-interests is not entitled to retain under this sub-
section; or
(ii) if the tenant gives such undertaking and accepts
such tenancy or possession of the land, such portion of
the land referred to in clause (i) to the restoration of
which the tenant would not be entitled under the first
proviso,
shall vest in the State Government free from all
encumbrances, and shall be disposed of in the manner
provided in sub-section (2) of section 32 P.]
Explanation. - In this sub-section "successor in interest"
means a person who acquires the interest by
testamentary disposition or devolution on death.]
(2) [ Where by custom, usage or agreement or order of a
Court, any warkas land belonging to the landlord is
used by the tenant for the purpose of rab manure in
connection with rice cultivation in the land held by him
as tenant-
(a) the whole of such warkas land, or
(b) as the case may be, such part thereof as the Tribunal
may determine in cases where such warkas land, is
jointly used by more persons than one for the purposes
of rab manure,
shall be included in the land to be deemed to have been
purchased by the tenant under sub-section (1):
Provided that in cases referred to in clause (b) the
Tribunal may determine that such warkas land shall be
jointly held by persons entitled to use the same, if in the
opinion of the Tribunal, the partition of such warkas
land by metes and bounds is neither practicable nor
expedient in the interest of such persons.]
(3) [ In respect of the land deemed to have been
purchased by a tenant under subsection (1),-
Page 23 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
(a) the tenant shall continue to be liable to pay to the
landlord the rent of such land, and
(b) the landlord shall continue to be liable to pay to the
State Government the dues, if any, referred to in
clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section
10A, where the tenant is not liable to pay such dues
under subsection (3) of that section.
until the amount of the purchase price payable by the
tenant to the landlord is determined under section
32H.]
(4) [ On the date of the commencement of the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment)
Act, 1960 (Gujarat XVI of 1960), every tenant in the
areas within the limits of Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925
(Bombay XVIII of 1925), or within the limits of
municipal districts constituted under the Bombay
District Municipal Act, 1901 (Bombay III of 1901), shall,
subject to the other provisions of this Act, be deemed to
have purchased from a landlord free from all
encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said date the
land held by him as tenant, as if the said date were the
tillers' day:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to
land leased by a landlord and situated within the limits
of, any such Municipal borough or municipal district, if
such land does not exceed an economic holding and the
total annual income of the landlord including the rent of
such land does not exceed Rs. 1,500 and such land is
not held under a permanent tenancy.
(5) A person eligible to the exemption as provided in the
proviso to sub-section (4),shall make an application
before the 1st day of July 1961 to the Mamlatdar for a
certificate as provided in section 88C, and the
provisions of sub-sections (2) to (4) of that section shall
apply thereto as if the application had been made under
section 88C.
(6) The provisions of sections 32S, 32T and 32U shall
mutatis mutandis apply to the termination of tenancy of
such land by a landlord holding a certificate under sub-
section (5) and purchase of such land by the tenant
thereof as if such landlord were a certified landlord and
such tenant were an excluded tenant within the
meaning of those sections.] [Sub-section (4),(5) and (6)
were inserted by Gujarat 16 of 1960, section 7]
Page 24 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
Section 32G:-Tribunal to issue and determine price of
land to be paid by tenants:-
32G. (1) As soon as may be after the tiller's day the
Tribunal shall publish or cause to be published a public
notice in the prescribed form in each village within its
jurisdiction calling upon–
(a) all tenants who under section 32 are deemed to have
purchased the lands.
(b) all landlords of such lands, and
(c) all other persons interested therein, to appear
before it on the date specified in the notice. The
Tribunal shall issue a notice individually to each such
tenant, landlord and also, as far as practicable, other
persons calling upon each of them to appear before it
on the date specified in the public notice. (2) The
Tribunal shall record in the prescribed manner the
statement of the tenant whether he is or is not willing
to purchase the land held by him as a tenant.
(3) Where any tenant fails to appear or makes a
statement that he is not willing to purchase the land,
the Tribunal shall by an order in writing declare that
such tenant is not willing to purchase the land and that
the purchase is ineffective:
Provided that if such order is passed in default of the
appearance of any party the Tribunal shall
communicate such order to the parties and any party on
whose default the order was passed may within 60 days
from the date on which the order was communicated to
him apply for the review of the same. (4) If a tenant is
willing to purchase, the Tribunal shall, after giving an
opportunity to the tenant and landlord and all other
persons interested in such land to be heard and after
holding an inquiry, determine the purchase price of
such land in accordance with the provisions of section
32H and of sub-section (3) of Section 63A:
[Provided that where the purchase price in accordance
with the provision of section 32H is mutually agreed
upon by the landlord and the tenant, the Tribunal after
satisfying itself in such manner as may be prescribed
that the tenant's consent to the agreement is voluntary
may make an order determining the purchase price and
providing for its payment in accordance with such
agreement.] (5) In the case of a tenant who is deemed
to have purchased the land on the postponed date the
Page 25 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
Tribunal shall, as soon as may be, after such date
determine the price of the land. (6) If any land which by
or under the provisions of any of the Land Tenures
Abolition Acts referred to in Schedule III to this Act, is
regranted to the holder thereof on condition that it was
not transferable, such condition shall not be deemed to
affect the right of any person holding such land on lease
created before the regrant and scuh person shall as a
tenant be deemed to have purchased the land under
this section, as if the condition that it was not
transferable was not the condition of regrant.
32K. Mode of payment of price by tenant -
(1) On the determination of the purchase price 1
[payable under section 32H], the tenant,– (i) if he is a
permanent tenant, shall deposit with the Tribunal the
entire amount of the purchase price within one year
from such date as may be fixed by the Tribunal:
Provided that if the Tribunal is satisfied that such
tenant has failed to make the payment within the time
specified for any reason beyond his control, the
Tribunal may extend the period by a period not
exceeding one year;
(ii) if he is not a permanent tenant, shall deposit with
the Tribunal the entire amount of the price–
(a) either in lump sum within one year from such date,
or
(b) in such annual installments not exceeding twelve
with simple interest at the rate of 4½ per cent. per
annum on or before such dates as may be fixed by the
Tribunal; and
the Tribunal shall direct that the amount deposited in
lump sum or the amount of installments deposited shall
be paid to the landlord:
[Provided that in a case in which the tenant is required
to deposit the amount in lump sum, if the Tribunal is
satisfied that such tenant has failed to deposit the
amount within the period specified in sub-clause (a) for
any reason beyond his control, it may extend the period
by a period not exceeding one year:
Provided further that where the period within which
Page 26 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
the lump sum was to be paid has expired before the
commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1960,
then notwithstanding the expiry of the period the
Tribunal may extend the period by a period not
exceeding one year from the date of such
commencement.]
(2) During any period for which payment of rent is
suspended or remitted under section 13, the tenant
shall not be bound to pay the purchase price inlump
sum or the amount of any instalments fixed under this
section or any interest thereon, if any.
Section 32M : Purchase to be ineffective on tenant’s
failure to pay purchase price in lump sum on in
instalments, within given period :-
(1) On the deposit of the price in lump sum or of the
last instalment of such price, the Tribunal shall issue a
certificate of purchase in the prescribed form, to the
tenant in respect of the land. Such certificate shall be
conclusive evidence of purchase. If a tenant fails to pay
lump sum within the period fixed under clause (ii) of
sub-section (1) of section 32K, or is at any time in
arreas of four instalments the purchase shalll be
ineffective and the land shall be at the disposal of the
Collector under section 32P and any amount deposited
by such tenant towards the price of the land shall be
refunded to him.
[(2) In the case of the purchase of any land by a tenant,
which before the date of the commencement of the
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat
Amendment) Act, 1965 has become ineffective by
reason of the failure of the tenant to pay the lump sum
within the period fixed under clause (ii) of subsection
(1) of section 32K or the tenant remaining in arrears of
four instalments, if the tenant deposits with the
Tribunal within a period of three years from the date of
such commencement the entire amount of the price of
the land as fixed under section 32K or, as the case may
be, such portion of the price so fixed as may have
remained unpaid, together with the interest, if any,
payable under section 32K, the purchase of the land
shall be deemed not to have become so ineffective and
Page 27 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
the Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to the
tenant under sub-section (1).]
[(3) Notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified
in sub-section (2), if the tenant of land to which sub-
section (2) applies deposits with the Tribunal within a
period of two years after the expiry of the period
mentioned in sub-section (2) the entire amount of the
price of the land or, as the case may be, the portion of
the price, together with interest, as specified in the said
sub-section (2), the purchase of the lands shall be
deemed not to have become ineffective and the Tribunal
shall issue a certificate of purchase to the tenant under
sub-section (1).
(4) In the case of the purchase of any land by a tenant
which at any time after the date of the commencement
of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat
Amendment) Act, 1965 has become ineffective by
reason of the failure of the tenant to pay the lump sum
withing the period fixed under clause (ii) of sub-section
(1) of section 32K or the tenant remaining in arrears of
four instalments, if such land has not been disposed of
by the Collector in the manner provided in sub-section
(2) of section 32P, then, if the tenant deposits with the
Tribunal within the period of two years after the expiry
of the period mentioned in sub-section (2) the entire
amount of the price of the land as fixed under section
32K, or as the case may be, such portion of the price so
fixed as may have remained unpaid, together with the
interest if any, payable under section 32K, the purchase
of the land shall be deemed not to have become so
ineffective and the Tribunal shall issue a certificate of
purchase to the tenant under sub-section (1).]
[(5) Notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified
in sub-section (3) or (4)–
(a) if the tanant of land to which sub-section (3) or, as
the case may be, sub-section (4) applies and which has
not been disposed of by the Collector in the manner
provided in sub-section (7) of section 32P, deposits with
the Tribunal at any time before two months after the
commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1981, or
(b) if the specified tenant of land to which sub-section
(3) or, as the case may be, sub-section (4) applies and
which has not been disposed of by the Collector in the
Page 28 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
manner provided in sub-section (2) of section 32P,
deposits with the Tribunal at any time 2 [before the
date specified from time to time by notification in the
official Gazatte by the State Government in this regard].
the entire amount of the price of the land or, as the
case may be, the unpaid portion of the price, together
with interest, as specified in the said sub-section (3)
and (4), as the case may be, the purchase of the land
shall be deemed not to have become ineffective and the
Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to the
tenant or the specified tenant under sub-section (1).
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section and
sections 3 [32PP, 32PPP and 32QQ] the expression
"specified tenant" means a tenant who holds land
(whether as a tenant or owner or otherwise) not
exceeding four hectares.]
[Section 32-O deleted]
as it stood prior to deletion by Gujarat Act No.10 of
2009 dated 24.07.2009.
32O. Right of tenant whose tenancy is created after
tiller’s day to purchase land-(1) In respect of any
tenancy created after the tillers’ day notwithstanding
any agreement or usage to the contrary, a tenant
cultivating personally shall be deemed to have
purchased on the date of expiry of one year from the
commencement of such tenancy from the landlord the
land held by him or such part thereof a will raise the
holding of the tenant to the ceiling area.
(2) the provisions of sections 32 to 32N (both inclusive)
and of sections 32P, 32Q and 32R in so far as they may
be applicable shall apply to the purchase of the land by
a tenant under sub-section (1).
21. In the present case, the application dated 01.09.1975
was instituted categorically under Section 32-O and NOT
under Section 32G . From the scheme of the Act and the
arrangement of the sections comprising Chapter III as
referred to hereinabove, it is clear that there is marked
Page 29 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
difference between an application under Section 32-O and an
application under Section 32G. Section 32G is applicable
only , in the case of tenants, to those who under section 32
are deemed to have purchased the lands. On the other hand,
Section 32-O categorically applies to tenants whose tenancy is
created AFTER tillers’ days to purchase the land. Since the
application was made 18 years after tillers’ day, seeking
rights under the tenancy created AFTER tillers’ day. Such an
application could never have been altered into or considered
as an application under section 32G as has been done in the
present case. In our opinion, the very basis of the application
under Section 32-O was to completely exclude the operation
of the scheme of Section 32G, inasmuch as, the foundational
facts which are required to be pleaded in an application under
Section 32-O would destroy the very foundation for an
application under Section 32G. In other words, on the set of
facts which have been pleaded in an application under Section
32-0, which is to the effect that the tenancy has been created
AFTER tillers’ day, it is not possible to maintain an application
under Section 32G, which deals with a situation where the
tenancy has been created ON tillers’ day by virtue of Section
32. Thus, the conclusion and consequent approval of the
Page 30 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
Respondent's application under Section 32-O into an
application under Section 32G was clearly illegal and
impermissible and hence deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
22. Besides the above, we find that various
authorities/Tribunal below have observed on the merits and
the veracity of the Respondent’s claim as under :-
23. The order of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision
Application No. TEN.B.A.1204/82 dated 23.03.1983 reads as
under :
“7. Without entering into the merits of the case on persuing
the file of the Mamlatdar it is clear that the applicant-
landlord has not been given an opportunity for leading oral
evidence in the impugned inquiry held by the Mamlatdar at
the initial stage or at the second time while he proceeded to
hold further inquiry in pursuance of the remand order
directed by the Dy. Collector in Tenency Appeal No. 823/78.
dated 24-7-82. Thus the Mamlatdar was not at all justified in
not giving full and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the
applicant-landlord, as shri Desai has urged that the
deposition of the applicant has not at all been recorded in the
impugned inquiry held by the Mamlatdar either before
remand directed by the Dy Collector or prior to that, while
the Mamlatdar initially held inquiry which cannot be said to
be legally and validly in the eye of law (illegible) as the
concerned person is required to be heard in any judicial
inquiry before passing any judicial order either in his favour
or against him. The learned advocate Shri Parmar also
agreed with the learned advocate Shri Desai on this matter.
In that view of the fact, the matter requires to be remanded
to the Mamlatdar for fresh inquiry and hearing to be given to
Page 31 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
the applicant-landlord and on that point the matter requires
to be remanded to the Mamlatdar who shall provided
sufficient opportunity to both the parties for leading oral and
documentary evidence. However, while I am inclined to
remand the matter to the Mamlatdar. I may also mention
here that the Mamlatdar is directed to examine the villege
Talati of the said village who has entered the name of the
opponent as a cultivator in the year 1957-58 as to how his
name came to be written only for one year in village form
No.7-12 which is written, as can be seen, behind the back of
page 11 of the Mamlatdar's file. Thus, in view of the facts
stated here above, I pass the following order.
8. This revision application is allowed by setting aside the
orders passed by both the courts below and the matter is
remanded to the Mamlatdar for further fresh inquiry in
accordance with law and procedure made thereunder, as well
as, in the light of the observations made in this judgment.
24. In other words, the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
was of the clear opinion that the respondents’ name could not
have been entered solely for the year 1957-58 as a cultivator.
However, while remanding the matter back to the Mamlatdar,
the learned Tribunal had directed a “fresh inquiry” thereby
opening the doors to one more round of opportunities for the
respondents.
25. In the order dated 20.08.1985, the learned Mamlatdar
has held as under :
(Official translation from vernacular)
“In view of the above circumstances in this case, upon
considering the details of the case, the following issues
appear to be decided in this case:
Issue No. 1: Whether it is proved that Shankarbhai
Joitabhai cultivated the impugned land under tenancy rights
in 1957-58 and thereafter?
Page 32 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
Issue No. 2 :- Whether they are tenants of the said land
or not?
Issue No. 3 :- Decision and reasons thereof
The decision on the aforesaid issues is as under:
Issue No. 1 No
Issue No. 2 No
Issue No. 3 As per final order
The representation of the prospective tenant is of such
nature that he has been cultivating the said land since 25-30
years. He gives share to the land owner. Upon perusal of his
previous deposition recorded, in the deposition dated
25/12/1975 he states that he had cultivated the said land for
two years prior thereto for about two-four years. In the
deposition dated 19/12/1977 he states that he has been
cultivating since 57-58. Whereas in the application dated
01/09/1975 he states that he was cultivating prior to 57-58.
In the final deposition he states that he has been cultivating
since 25-30 years. Thus, his deposition is contradictory. If the
prospective tenant was cultivating the land as a tenant, it is
not believable that he would not be aware since how many
years he has been cultivating the land. If his first recorded
deposition is perused, he states that he had cultivated the
land prior to two years, i.e. prior to 73, for about three-four
years. There is no reference regarding the same in the
record. Further, his name does not appear in the Pani Patrak
for the years stated by him. His son Naranbhai states that
prior to his name being entered in the record, his father was
cultivating the land since three-four years. Further, he states
that whether his father was cultivating the said land on rent
basis or on crop-sharing basis, he is not aware thereof. Out of
the witnesses produced by him, Chelabhai Khushalbhai also
does not know under what right Shankarbhai is cultivating
the land. Out of the witnesses produced by them, Chelabhai
Khushalbhai also states that he does not know under what
right Shankarbhai is cultivating. In the cross-examination by
the Advocate, he states that he has a pan stall and that he
remains seated at the stall from 6 in the morning till 9 at
night. He states that adjacent to the disputed land, he had
Survey Nos. 522 and 518. Out of the said lands, he has sold
away the land bearing Survey No. 522. In the re-examination
by the learned Advocate, as per his statement, if he remains
seated at the pan stall from 6 in the morning till 9 at night,
then how could he state as to who cultivates the land situated
adjacent to his land, and how his representation in that
regard could remain sustainable. This fact renders his
Page 33 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
deposition not believable. The second witness Nathaji Piraji
states that Shankarbhai was cultivating the land. He states
that he is not aware under what arrangement he was
cultivating. In the cross-examination, he states that he was
serving as a peon and is now retired. He states that he is not
aware of the Survey Number of the land owned by him. He
states that he retired four years ago and that he had seen
Shankarbhai cultivating about 20 years earlier. Thus, as per
his deposition (illegible), the representation is that
Shankarbhai was cultivating the said land around the year
1965. In the irrigation statement of the said year, his name
does not appear. Considering the factual aspects, his
representation does not appear believable.
The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal had directed to examine
the Talati-cum-Mantri of the year 57-58 and decide the
matter. Accordingly, the deposition of the Talati-cum-Mantri
has been recorded. Therein, he has clearly deposed that in
the year 59-58 he had initially entered the name of
Shankarbhai Joitaram in the Pani Patrak under Method-4.
Which, upon spot verification, was corrected by bracketing
the name of Shankarbhai and entering “self” and Method-2.
Further, he states that upon personal verification and being
satisfied, he had carried out the correction. In the year 1957-
58, the Talati-cum-Mantri was required to enter the name of
the person actually cultivating upon spot verification, and in
exercise of such authority, if correction was made where a
wrong name had been entered in the Pani Patrak, the same
falls within his authority. The said correction appears to be
genuine. Because, if in fact the prospective tenant was
cultivating the said land as a tenant, then upon deletion of his
entered name from the Pani Patrak, he would have made an
application for re-entry of their name. No such application
had been made till 1975. Thus, for 17 years he had taken no
steps in that regard. He had made an application as tenant
and obtained the land bearing Survey No. 658. Therefore,
had he been tenants of this land also, he could have made
claim for this Survey Number as well at the time of claiming
Survey No. 658 under tenancy right. This fact also gives
reason to believe that he had not cultivated the said land as
tenants.
As discussed earlier, since the present inquiry is under
Section (illegible) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, even if the
name of the prospective tenant had not been entered in the
Pani Patrak (illegible), still, upon holding inquiry, if tenancy
Page 34 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
right is proved, tenancy rights can be granted. And therefore,
whether inquiry is required to be conducted in this case on
the basis of the deposition of the Talati, the objection raised
by the learned Advocate of the land owner does not deserve
to be accepted.
In the written arguments submitted by the Advocate for
the tenant, it has been stated that though he has been
cultivating the said land since 01/04/1957, due to social
reasons he desired to remain concealed tenants. Concealed
tenants, as provided in the tenancy law (illegible), are those
tenants who had surrendered the lands by resignation, but
thereafter continued in possession of the land as tenants with
or without the consent of the land owner. In the present case,
there is no such representation by the prospective tenant.
Therefore, the representation that they are concealed tenants
of the said land cannot be sustained.
The details of the facts produced by the land owner and
his witnesses have been stated hereinabove. Wherein, they
have produced receipts regarding cultivation of the said land
on lease basis and depositions of the persons carrying out
tilling and cultivation. Since he was residing at Mehsana,
ration card etc. have also been produced.
Apart from the aforesaid entire facts, the contention of
the Advocate for the tenant is that on two earlier occasions
the Agricultural Tribunal had treated him as tenants of the
said land and fixed the purchase price. Therefore, the said
land should be sold to him under tenancy rights. In context of
this contention of the learned Advocate, upon perusal of the
earlier proceedings, the said inquiries were conducted ex-
parte. The land owner had remained absent. Since the cases
were proceeded with and decided in their absence,
subsequently he had preferred dispute applications against
the said facts up to the Revenue Tribunal. And the Revenue
Tribunal had remanded the case for fresh decision after
collecting fresh evidence and after hearing the parties. Thus,
as fresh inquiry has been conducted in the matter, the case is
required to be decided by taking into consideration the
documentary and oral evidence produced in the present
inquiry.
As discussed hereinabove, upon perusal of the evidence
produced in the present case, it appears that in the year
Page 35 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
1957-58 the name of the prospective tenant had been
mistakenly entered by the Talati-cum-Mantri and thereafter
corrected and deleted, and the prospective tenant is making
representation of tenancy right with a view to take benefit
thereof. Because, in fact, had he been cultivating the said
land as tenants, then after deletion of his name from the Pani
Patrak, he would have made representation in that regard.
The prospective tenant has obtained the land bearing Survey
No. 658 of Mehsana under tenancy right. Even at that time,
he had not made any representation for obtaining the said
land under tenancy right. Prior to 1975, he had not made any
representation for obtaining the said land under tenancy
right or for entering his name in the Pani Patrak. Taking into
consideration all these facts, it appears that he is not tenants
of the said land and that he had not cultivated the said land
under tenancy right. In view of these facts, the following
order is passed in the present case.
Order
Since it is not proved that Mr. Shankarlal Joitaram
Patel had cultivated the land bearing Sim Survey No. 524 of
Mehsana as tenant in the year 1957-58 and thereafter, it is
held that he is not the tenant of the said land and therefore it
is ordered to reject the claim application dated 01/09/1975
filed by him.
26. It is thus seen that the learned Mamlatdar and A.L.T had
categorically held by detailed findings, which cannot be
faulted by us, that the respondents were not tenants of the
land in question. The findings of the learned Mamlatdar and
A.L.T and the discussion which precedes the same inspire
confidence in the decision making process of the learned
Mamlatdar and A.L.T.
27. The order of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision
Page 36 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
th
Application No. TEN.B.A.285/86 dated 18 December, 1989
reads as under :-
“6. In this case, I have gone through the judgment of the
Mamlatdar and the Prant Officer. The Mamlatdar has gone
into the relevant aspects of the matter after the remand by
the G.R.T. Having recorded the evidence, he has framed the
issues and after considering the (illegible) evidence passed
orders with reasons. He has kep(illegible) deposition of the
Talati Natvarlal also in view wh(illegible) passing the orders.
All said and done, it is a reas(illegible) order. As against this,
I find that the Prant Officer has done precious little in his
judgment of 10-2-86 (illegible) the matter of appeal. He has
nerely traced the (illegible) of the matter, enumerated the
written submissions (illegible) by the parties and in the last
paragraph he has (illegible) it fit to set aside the order of the
Mamlatdar and remanded it "for taking further evidence. and
giving opportunity to produce evidence to the opponent.
7. I (illegible) the judgment of the Prant Officer that it
(illegible) application of mind and is perfunctory. It (illegible)
reasoned judgment also, I must mention here that the whole
exercise of the Prant Officer has been in(illegible), which has
resulted into wastage of four years time from the date of his
judgment to the disposal of the present revision application.
He has taken no pains to go deep into the evidence which has
been on record and more particularly after the remand order
by the G.R.T. He has not discussed, evaluated and assessed
the arguments of the parties and has simply shifted his
burden of duty from his shoulders to (illegible) the Mamlatdar
and A.LT. by passing the order (illegible) method of disposal,
unfortunately, leads (illegible) and inconvenience to the
parties (illegible) the litigation open unending.
8. (illegible), it will not be proper for this (illegible) in
revision under sec-76 of the Act to (illegible) observation on
the evidence on record, which (illegible) particularly when
the appellate authority has not discharged its duties,
(illegible). functions and responsibilities. In a situation like
this, I must set aside the order of the prant officer dated 10-2-
86 and direct him to conduct the appeal after taking it on his
file again and after hearing the advocates of the parties, he
should give a reasoned judgment based upon the evidence
and the law as may be applicable.
Page 37 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
28. By way of the aforesaid order, the learned Tribunal has
once again directed the learned Mamlatdar and A.L.T to
reappreciate the evidence on record as against taking in new
evidence in the matter.
29. The learned Single Judge has not given his own reasons
for coming to the conclusion that the writ petition filed by the
appellant should be dismissed and has instead merely
referred to the findings in favour of the respondents in the
proceedings below and has agreed with the same. We further
find that the specific challenges of the writ petitioner have not
been decided and the findings in favour of the respondents
have been simply approved.
30. In our view, the learned Single Judge has failed to
consider the effect of Section 32-D and Section 29 of the
Tenancy Act, 1948. A so-called tenancy created in the year
1957, which was neither recorded nor acted upon until 1975,
i.e., for more than 18 years after Tillers’ day, i.e., 01.04.1957,
cannot, in our opinion, be treated as a subsisting tenancy. In
our view, the application under Section 32-O of the Tenancy
Act, 1948 for restoration of alleged possession could not have
Page 38 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
been converted into proceedings under Section 32-G of the
Tenancy Act, 1948, as the same would have been hopelessly
time-barred. Besides, upon perusal of the evidence of the
respondents, we find that no oral, documentary, or
circumstantial evidence exists which would have compelled
the authorities below to declare the respondents as tenants,
when the respondents have not shown either the creation of
tenancy, cultivation of crops, crop share, payment of rent, or
payment of revenue. In the absence of the same, the
respondents could not have been declared as tenants, that
too, in an application for restoration of the alleged possession.
31. After having given thoughtful consideration to the
documentary evidence available on record, the rival
submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties, as
well as the findings and observations referred to hereinabove,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the present appeal
deserves to be allowed.
32. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated
04.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No. 11464 of 2010 in which the orders of the
Page 39 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026
C/LPA/82/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/05/2026
Deputy Collector dated 09.09.1991 confirmed by order dated
05.01.2007 of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the order
dated 20.07.2010 in a Review Application against the order
dated 05.01.2007, also of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal have
merged, is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the
judgment and order dated 20.08.1985 of the Mamlatdar and
A.L.T in Tenancy Case No. 172 of 1983 is hereby restored.
The appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, the Civil Application stands disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
BINA SHAH
Page 40 of 40
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Fri May 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 13:32:50 IST 2026