LEGAL HEIRS OF MAHARAJA VIRENDRASINHJI NATVARSINHJI CHAUHAN JAYPRATAPSINHJI VIRENDRASINHJI CHAUHANversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     C/SCA/14221/2019                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14221 of 2019
                         With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2019
   In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14221 of 2019
                         With
    CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2026
   In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14221 of 2019

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

=============================================
            Approved for Reporting                      Yes           No
                                                                      √
=============================================
 LEGAL HEIRS OF MAHARAJA VIRENDRASINHJI NATVARSINHJI
   CHAUHAN JAYPRATAPSINHJI VIRENDRASINHJI CHAUHAN
                         Versus
                STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR AMAR D MITHANI(484) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR YV VAGHELA(2450) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DHAVAL PARMAR, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,6
LAW OFFICER BRANCH(420) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,8
MR DM DEVNANI(5880) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,8
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 7
=============================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                              Date : 07/07/2026
                              ORAL JUDGMENT
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2026 :

1.       Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Dhaval Parmar, learned
AGP       waives        service   of   rule      for   the    State   opponents.
Mr.Devnani, learned advocate waives service of Rule for
opponent Nos.5 and 8.


                                       Page 1 of 6
     C/SCA/14221/2019                            JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026




2.       The present application is filed by the applicant –
original petitioner with a prayer to delete respondent Nos.5
and 8 from the array of parties in the main petition.

3.       Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

4.       Having heard learned advocates for the parties and
considering the averments made in the application, the
present application is partly allowed in terms of para 5(A) of
the application. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid extent.
Necessary amendment be made in the main matter, forthwith.


ORDER IN THE SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION & CIVIL
APPLICATION FOR STAY :

1.       Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Dhaval Parmar, learned
AGP waives service of rule for the State respondents.


2.       Heard Mr.Amar Mithani, learned advocate for the
petitioners and Mr.Chirag Parmar, learned AGP appearing for
the State respondents.


3.       The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :

          “(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow
          the present petition;

          (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
          certiorari or any other appropriate writ. order or
          direction to quash and set aside the impugned Order
          dated 02.08.2019 passed below Exhibit 114 of Special
          Civil Suit No. 162 of 2017 and be pleased to allow the
          Application Exhibit 114 (Annexure 'A') as prayed for in


                                 Page 2 of 6
     C/SCA/14221/2019                              JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026




          the interest of justice;

          (C) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal
          of this petition, be pleased to stay the further
          proceedings of Special Civil Suit No. 162 of 2017 (Old
          No. 190/2015) pending before the Court of Ld.
          Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chhota Udepur;

          (D) Pending, admission, hearing and final disposal of
          this petition, be pleased to stay the implementation,
          operation and the execution of impugned Order dated
          02.08.2019 passed below Exhibit 114, passed by the
          Ld. Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chhota Udeppur in
          Special Civil Suit No. 162 of 2017 (Old No. 290/2015).
          with all consequential effects;”


4.       Mr. Mithani, learned advocate for the petitioners would
submit that the trial court has committed a serious error in
law by rejecting the impugned application filed below Exhibit
103 of the petitioners-plaintiffs in the suit. It is submitted that
the impugned application ought to have been allowed by the
trial court and it ought to have framed an additional issue as
proposed in the interim application because it is the case of
the respondents-defendants that they are the owners of the
suit property and their names were mutated in the revenue
records by due process of law.


5.       Per contra, Mr.Parmar, learned AGP would oppose this
petition contending, inter alia, that there is no error much less
any gross error of law committed by the trial court while
rejecting the impugned application. It is submitted that the
necessary burden to prove the factum of ownership is upon
the plaintiff as he is seeking the declaration about the same.
He submitted that the necessary issue in this regard is



                                     Page 3 of 6
     C/SCA/14221/2019                            JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026




already framed by the trial court which is also referred to in
the impugned order. It is further submitted that as the
respondents-defendants have not filed any counter-claim and
sought any declaration from the trial court, no burden can be
cast upon them.


6.       Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon perusal of the order impugned in this
petition as well as the copy of pleadings of the parties made
available on the record of this petition, it appears that the
plaintiffs have sought a declaration that by virtue of filing the
suit, that he be declared as owner of the suit property and the
defendant/State has no right to take and disturb their
possession. After completion of pleadings of the parties, the
trial court has framed the following issues :


          “1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the
          owner of the suit-properties (Survey No. 124, 125 (Old
          Survey No.140, 148) admeasure of 124.19 (Acre),
          situated in the Village-Khuntalia, Taluka of Chhota-
          udepur)?

          2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in legal
          possession of the suit-properties?

          3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that Defendant No.1, 2,
          without considering ownership and possession of
          plaintiffs, have wrongly alloted suit lands to the
          Defendant No. 4, 6 & 8?

          4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get relief as
          prayed for?

          5. What Order & Decree?”




                                 Page 4 of 6
     C/SCA/14221/2019                        JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026




7.       The petitioner happens to be the plaintiff and by virtue
of the impugned application filed below Exhibit 103 requested
the trial Court to frame an additional issue whereby it has
been suggested to frame the issue that whether defendant
Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 prove that the suit property has been
vested in the State Government by following due process of
law? The second issue proposed is in regard to whether
defendant Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 prove that after the suit
property had been vested in the State Government in the
revenue records, possession thereof was obtained from its
owner?


8.       The trial Court has correctly observed in the impugned
order that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove
their ownership of the suit property and the necessary issue in
this regard is already framed as observed. It is not in dispute
that the respondents-defendants have not filed any counter-
claim and sought any declaration/relief from the trial court in
the suit. Moreover, the issues were framed on 29/8/2018,
whereas the impugned application appears to have been filed
on 24/7/2019, after more than a year thereafter by the
plaintiffs.


9.       Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and having not found any reasons either perverse
or erroneous in the present petition, I would not like to
disturb the impugned order while exercising my power under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.



                               Page 5 of 6
         C/SCA/14221/2019                                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026




   10.        Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition.
   Consequently, it is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim
   relief, if any, stands vacated. Resultantly, the connected Civil
   Application No.1 of 2019 also stands disposed of.


                                                                                  (MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
   GAURAV J THAKER

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: GAURAVKUMAR JANARDANBHAI THAKER(HC00951), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/07/2026 18:01:57




                                                            Page 6 of 6