DEVARAJBHAI VALJIBHAI GADA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS HEIRSversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

    C/LPA/653/2017                              JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 653 of 2017

                                  With
               CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2017
              In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 653 of 2017
                                  With
                R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 654 of 2017
                                  With
               CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2017
              In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 654 of 2017
                                  With
                R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 655 of 2017
                                  With
               CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2017
              In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 655 of 2017
                                  With
                R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 656 of 2017
                                  With
               CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2017
              In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 656 of 2017
                                  With
                R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 657 of 2017
                                  With
               CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2017
              In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 657 of 2017
                                  With
                R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 658 of 2017
                                  With
               CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2017
              In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 658 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL

and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
================================================================

           Approved for Reporting              Yes           No

================================================================
  DEVARAJBHAI VALJIBHAI GADA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS HEIRS &
                           ORS.
                           Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR JITENDRA M PATEL(620) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4


                                Page 1 of 10
      C/LPA/653/2017                            JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




MR. SANJAY UDHWANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
       SUNITA AGARWAL
       and
       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY

                            Date : 17/03/2026

                        COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

   (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
                        AGARWAL)


 1.     The above-noted set of intra-court appeals arise out of

 the common judgment and order dated 21.11.2016 passed by

 the Writ Court and, as such, have been heard together and

 are being decided by this common judgment.


 2.     The judgment and order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the

 Writ Court in deciding the set of writ petitions was

 pertaining to the challenge to the common order dated

 1-10.11.1999          passed by the Additional Chief Secretary

 (Appeals) Revenue Department (in short as “the SSRD”), as

 also the order dated 12.06.1995 passed by the respondent

 no. 5 - Collector in RTS Proceedings Case No. 1/1994, Case

 Nos. 27/1994 to Case No. 31/1994.


 3.     By means of the order impugned dated 12.06.1995, the

 Collector, in a suo moto proceedings, had issued show cause


                                Page 2 of 10
     C/LPA/653/2017                                JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




notice to all the parties and, after hearing them, had directed

for cancellation of all entries in the name of Devarajbhai

Valajibhai            Gada,   the   predecessor    in   interest       of       the

petitioners, with respect to the lands which were the subject

matter of transfer vide Will dated 23.05.1985 and also the

registered sale deeds dated 10.09.1991 and further directed

for initiation of the proceedings under Section 84C of the

Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (in short as

the “Tenancy Act, 1948”).



4.     On a further challenge before the SSRD, the order

passed by the Collector has been affirmed with the findings

that:-



         “Thus looking to the entry Nos. 1389, 2650, 2651, 2649,
         1670 and 1658 mutated with regard to the sell
         transactions happened in the cases of Moje Kumsariya
         and Moje Balda when the applicants of this case have
         purchased the agricultural lands prior thereto
         becoming Agricultural Acount Holder through Will
         purchased this lands. Therefore, when the applicants
         have purchased the said lands on that day as per the
         definition of “Farmer” given in the Tenanct Act were
         not the farmer. First becoming farmer under the guise
         of Will thereafter on that basis purchased the other
         lands. The non-farmer canot purchase the agricultural
         land such proviso has been made in Section 63 of
         Tenancy Act and whoever non-farmer wants to
         purchase the agricultural land than such person shall
         have to obtain permission under Sectio 63 of Tenancy


                                    Page 3 of 10
C/LPA/653/2017                           JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




    Act and Rule 36 (F). In this case no such permission has
    been obtained by the applicants. The submission of the
    Advocate for the applicant that the law of 8 km. has
    been repealed by the Government and barred by the
    limitation of time, and Will is not a transfer, such
    submission is not accepatble because the law of 8 Km.
    repealed by the Government of Gujarat vide Act No.
    4/95 dated 06.04.1995 whereas in the present case the
    sell transactions are prior to that hence no benefit of
    such law can be granted. And the transactions which
    are illegal since its inception those are nulity in view of
    law. In such cases there is no bar of time limit or
    reasonable period. As resolved in Spl. C. A. No. 267/77
    Patel Ada Megha Versus Government of Gujarat case
    the impugned order may taken in review and rejected
    at any point of time. And as resolved by the Honourable
    Supreme Court Honourable Justice Shri K. M. Sing and
    Ratnavel Pandiyan in Appeal No. 780/76, dated
    18.09.1990 the property which is legally not available
    such property may transfer thorugh Will is not
    considered as proper. It is necessary to obtain
    permission as per the provisions of concerned law.
    Such meaning included therein.

        The Honourable Gujarat Government has formed
    the Tenancy Act in favour of farmer Breaching the
    provisions of Tenancy Act under the guise of Will
    obtaining status of farmer such activities of purchasing
    lands elsewhere cannot be encouraged. In this case the
    applicants are non-farmer who have obtained status of
    farmer under the guise of Will purchased the other
    lands. And they have not produced any proofrs of
    having been farmer or not obtained necessary
    permission which are to be obtained as per the law
    prior to purchase of land. Therefoer, for breach of
    Section 63 of Tennacy Act canceling all the entries the
    Collector, Valsad has taken decision to carry out
    procedure under Section 84(C). In this case it has been
    clearly proved from the evidence bsed on record that in
    this case the sell transactions happenede between
    farmer and non-farmer. Therfore, it is clearly proved
    that there is breach of Section 63 of Tenancy Act.
    Therefore, it is not advisable to accept the arguments of


                          Page 4 of 10
     C/LPA/653/2017                                JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




         learned Advocate of the applicants. The order of the
         Collector, Valsad is self explanatory.

              Looking to it as a whole in the above
         circumstances, the decision taken by the Collector,
         Valsad vide her above Order No. CH.RTS.Review Case
         1/94, 27/94, 28/94, 29/94, 30/94 and 31/94, dated
         12.06.1995 is propoer and legal hence no suitable
         reason found to make interference in it. Therefore, the
         following order is hereby passed.

                                   ORDER

             The above numbers 6(six) Revision Applications of
         the applicants are hereby rejected on the above stated
         reasons. And the impugned order of Collector, Valsad
         bearing No. CH.RTS Review Case 1/94, 27/94, 28/94,
         29/94, 30/94 and 31/94 dated 12.06.1995 is hereby
         uphold.”


5.     The Writ Court in the judgment impugned, categorically

records that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner

namely Devarajbhai Valjibhai Gada, had got the land bearing

Survey No. 49/6 admeasuring 8 gunthas through the Will

dated         23.05.1985   from   its        original    owner,       namely,

Bhagubhai Kanjibhai Patel. The subsequent purchases by

way of sale deeds were made by Devarajbhai in the year

1991 after execution of the Will in his favour. The SSRD, in

the order impugned, recorded that Devarajbhai got the

status of an agriculturist by virtue of an illegal transfer made

by the Will dated 06.04.1995, and the subsequent purchases



                              Page 5 of 10
     C/LPA/653/2017                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




were made on the premise of getting the said status of an

agriculturist based on the Will. The stand taken by the

petitioner that the Will was not a transfer and cannot be said

to be in breach of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act, 1948 was

upturned by the SSRD while upholding the order passed by

the Collector for cancellation of the revenue entries.


6.     Before the Writ Court, it was initially argued that the

issue as to whether Section 63 of the Tenancy Act debars an

agriculturist from parting with the agricultural land to a non-

agriculturist through ‘Will’ was pending before the Supreme

Court, and therefore, the judgement of the Division Bench of

this Court in the case of Rajendrabhai Baldevbhai Shah

Vs. Baijiben Kabhaibhai Patanvadia and Ors., reported

in 2009(2) GLR 1784 could not be said to have attained

finality.


7.     The Writ Court further recorded that the transactions

recorded in the six entries-in-question have not been

disputed by the petitioners. It was not disputed that Survey

No.49/6          was   bequeathed   by        the   deceased       Bhagubhai

Kanjibhai to the deceased Devarajbhai Valjibhai by executing

the Will dated 23.05.1985. It was also noted that there is


                               Page 6 of 10
     C/LPA/653/2017                         JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




nothing on record to suggest that the said Devarajbhai was

an agriculturist when the land bearing Survey No.49/6 came

to be transferred in his name pursuant to the Will executed

by Bhagubhai Kanjibhai. The Entry No.1389 was recorded

on 21.02.1991 after the death of the Bhagubhai when Will

came into light. The subsequent entries were with regard to

the purchase of the lands made by Devarajbhai from other

persons.


8.     The Collector had taken all the entries in a suo motu

revision on the ground that the transfer made by the

deceased Bhagubhai in favour of the Devarajbhai, who was a

non-agriculturist, through Will was in violation of Section 63

of the Tenancy Act and other subsequent transfers would

also be in violation of the said provisions for the same

reason. The order passed by the Collector for cancellation of

all the entries and the direction for initiation of the

proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act, thus, has

been upheld by the Writ Court, with the observations in the

paragraph no. ‘11’ as under:-


          “11.     In the instant case, vide the impugned order
          the Collector has set aside the entries made in the
          revenue record, which were prima facie found to be in


                             Page 7 of 10
     C/LPA/653/2017                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




          violation of the Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and
          therefore, directed the Mamlatdar and ALT to initiate
          proceedings under Section 84C of the said Act. The
          Collector himself has not exercised the powers under
          Section 84C of the said Act as sought to be submitted
          by Mr.Mehta. In the inquiry before the Mamlatdar
          under Section 84C, the petitioners would have the
          opportunity of hearing and to produce the material. It
          is needless to say that the revenue entries are made
          only for the fiscal purpose and they themselves do not
          create any right, title or interest in favour of any
          party.”


9.     In so far as the issue as to whether the Will by an

agriculturist in favour of a non-agriculturist would be hit by

Section 63 of the Tenancy Act, 1948 has been adjudicated by

the Apex Court in the judgment and order dated 15.06.2020

in case of Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia V/s. State of

Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2020 4 GLR 2800.



10. Having noted the above, we do not find any error in the

order of the Writ Court in upholding the order passed by the

Collector that the entry made on 21.02.2021 (on the basis of

Will dated 23.05.1985) and all other the subsequent entries

based on the registered sale deed of the year 1991 are hit by

Section 63 of the Tenancy Act, for the transfers being in

favour        of      a   non-agriculturist        without   permission.            No

interference, as such, is called for in the order of the writ


                                    Page 8 of 10
  C/LPA/653/2017                           JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




Court.


11. However, in view of the observation made in paragraph

no. ‘11’ of the judgment of the writ Court, we may reiterate

that the Mamlatdar shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings

under Section 84 C of the Tenancy Act in compliance of the

order dated 12.06.1995 passed by the Collector. But in the

inquiry before the Mamlatdar under Section 84 C, the

petitioner shall be at liberty to produce their documentary

evidence and will be entitled to have due opportunity of

hearing.


12. We may also reiterate the clarifications given by the writ

Court in the judgment impugned that revenue entries are

made only for fiscal purposes and they themselves do not

create any right, title or interest in favour of any party.


13. The liberty, therefore, rests with the Mamlatdar to

proceed in accordance with the law, under Section 84 C of

the Tenancy Act, independently, without being influenced by

any of the observations made by the Writ Court or in this

order hereinabove. It is clarified that the petitioners shall

also be at liberty to lead evidence and contest the



                            Page 9 of 10
     C/LPA/653/2017                                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




 proceedings, independently.


 14. With the above, the present set of appeals are disposed

 of. Interim relief, if any, stands discharged.


 15. In view of dismissal of all the appeals, connected Civil

 Applications also stand disposed of.


                                                                           (SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )



                                                                                                 (D.N.RAY,J)
VARSHA DESAI




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: VARSHABEN VAGHAJIBHAI DESAI(HC01393), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 24/03/2026 18:01:44




                                                  Page 10 of 10