Section 63AD of the Gujarat Tenancy Act operates prospectively and cannot penalize transactions predating its enactment.

The petitioner, an agriculturist, purchased land in 2003 and subsequently sold it to a non-agriculturist via a registered sale deed dated 20.01.2005.

In 2021, after a 16-year delay, the Mamlatdar initiated suo-moto inquiry under Section 84-C of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (the "Tenancy Act") for breach of Section 63, ordering the land to vest in the State.

The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT), by order dated 26.03.2024, set aside the vesting order based on a settlement where the land was restored to the petitioner, subject to payment of "premium, if applicable".

Simultaneously, a Civil Court declared the 2005 sale deed void ab-initio.

Despite the GRT’s directions, the Mamlatdar issued the impugned communication dated 18.12.2024, demanding a penalty of ₹19,25,92,410/- under Section 63AD of the Tenancy Act.

1. Whether Section 63AD of the Tenancy Act can be applied retrospectively to a transaction executed in 2005.

2. Whether the Mamlatdar exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing a penalty under Section 63AD contrary to the directions of the GRT and the High Court.

The court applied Section 63AD of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which provides for a penalty of three times the Jantri value for transfers in breach of Section 63(1).

The court relied on the precedent Dalsukhbhai Chaturbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat [2024(0) AIJEL-HC-248451], which established that Section 63AD is a substantive law that operates prospectively from its enforcement date of 05.12.2015 and does not affect transfers carried out prior to the amendment.

The court reasoned that Section 63AD was brought into force on 05.12.2015. Since the subject transaction occurred on 20.01.2005, it precedes the enactment of the penalty provision.

Following the Division Bench ruling in Dalsukhbhai Prajapati, the court held that substantive changes—such as the mandatory restoration of land coupled with a triple Jantri penalty—cannot be applied to past transactions.

The court noted that the GRT had already restored the petitioner as the owner and only directed the payment of "premium," not "penalty."

The Mamlatdar’s demand for ₹19.25 crores was found to be a jurisdictional error as it ignored both the GRT's final order and the fact that the 2005 sale deed had been declared void ab-initio by a Civil Court, effectively undoing the breach.

The petition was allowed, and the impugned communication dated 18.12.2024 was quashed and set aside as the Mamlatdar exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing a penalty beyond the scope of the GRT’s directions and contrary to settled law.