Vendor cannot challenge non-agricultural conversion based on statutory violations resulting from their own fraudulent land transfer.

The subject land (Survey No. 131, Village Ambli) was originally granted to the appellant’s father on a "New Tenure" basis (restricted tenure) under the Tenancy Act in 1963.

On July 6, 1995, despite a stay order from the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the appellant purportedly executed a registered sale deed in favor of the private respondents' ancestor.

After decades of litigation, including a failed civil suit by the appellant to cancel the 1995 deed, the Collector passed orders on December 15, 2022, and December 20, 2022, removing restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and granting Non-Agricultural (NA) use permission.

The appellant challenged these orders via a writ petition, alleging the respondents suppressed the fact of pending civil litigation when applying for NA permission. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on March 17, 2026, leading to this Letters Patent Appeal.

1. Whether the orders removing Section 43 restrictions and granting NA permission were vitiated by fraud, suppression of material facts, or misrepresentation regarding pending civil suits.

2. Whether an appellant who has himself violated the statutory restrictions of the Tenancy Act by selling New Tenure land can subsequently challenge the regularization of that transaction.

Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, which restricts the transfer of land granted to tenants without prior sanction from the Collector.

The principle that fraud and suppression of material facts can vitiate administrative orders.

The doctrine that the equitable jurisdiction of Article 226 is not available to a party who is a "violator-perpetrator" of the illegality, distinguishing Decd. Shaikh Ismailbhai Hushainbhai v. Vankar Ambalal Dhanabhai [2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 247772].

The Court found that the appellant had knowingly and willingly violated Section 43 of the Tenancy Act by selling the land to a non-agriculturist as far back as 1995. The Court held that the appellant, being the perpetrator of the initial illegal transfer, lacked the standing to question the subsequent administrative consequences or regularizations of his own act.

Regarding the allegation of suppression, the Court upheld the Single Judge's finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate any fraud or misrepresentation by the private respondents. The Court noted that the appellant's previous challenge to the 1995 sale deed (Special Civil Suit No. 157/14) had been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and had attained finality, meaning the registered sale deed remained valid and binding.

The court affirmed the Collector's orders dated December 15, 2022, and December 20, 2022, and the Single Judge’s judgment dated March 17, 2026, finding no merit in the claims of suppression. No costs were imposed.