Disputes over the nature of leasehold rights must be resolved in civil proceedings, not revenue proceedings.

The dispute concerned municipal leasehold Plot No. 1388.

After the recorded lessee, Vashrambhai Bhavanbhai, died in 1964, a 1968 revenue entry recorded both his brothers and his sons as leaseholders.

In proceedings initiated in 1985, the revenue authorities cancelled that entry and recorded only the sons’ names.

The brothers’ challenge was rejected by the revenue authorities, but the Single Judge set aside those orders and restored the 1968 entry.

The sons appealed by Letters Patent Appeal.

Whether the Single Judge was justified in setting aside the revenue authorities’ orders and restoring the 1968 entry recording the brothers and the sons as leaseholders

Whether the parties’ competing claims to substantive leasehold rights could be determined in revenue proceedings, or instead required a civil remedy

A dispute over the parties’ substantive rights in leasehold property—including whether the leasehold rights were joint-family rights or belonged individually to the deceased lessee—could not be decided in revenue proceedings; parties asserting such rights may pursue the civil remedies available in law.

Section 203 of the Land Revenue Code was mentioned in the procedural history of the earlier challenge.

The Court found no sufficient reason to interfere with the Single Judge’s restoration of the 1968 entry, which had recorded the brothers and the sons and had remained in place until it was cancelled in 1998 following the dispute raised in 1985.

It treated the competing claims about the nature and ownership of the leasehold rights as matters for civil adjudication, rather than grounds for resolving substantive rights through revenue proceedings.

It clarified that the parties could pursue civil remedies to establish their respective leasehold rights; no order as to costs was made.