State Of Gujarat vs Harendrrakumar Natwarsinhji ... on 17 December, 2025

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Harendrrakumar Natwarsinhji ... on 17 December, 2025

JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined

1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02 / 04.02.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Porbandar, namely respondent No.3 in Land Ceiling Revision Case No.1 of 1983 dated 30.03.1983 and the order dated 25.08.1989 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, namely respondent No.2 therein. A further direction has been given to the respondent authorities to consider / treat Natwar Baug Palace Complex held by the petitioner as being outside the purview of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act, 1960').

2. We may note that before the writ court, three issues had been raised by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Deputy Collector, Porbandar and Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in holding that an area of 476.03 gunthas, out of 530.03 guntha, of the land in question was required to be declared surplus (as on 01.04.1976) and the owner was entitled to retain only 54.00 acres of the total land.

3. The arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner have been noted in paragraph 4.10 of the judgment impugned, which reads as under:-

"4.10 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner raised following contentions for the consideration of this Court:-

I. Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji (step-son) - petitioner is Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined entitled to claim one separate ceiling unit.

II. Adopted-son Udaybansinhji, who expired before the specified date is also entitled to claim one separate unit.

III. Land admeasuring 14 acres and 34 gunthas forming part of 'Gamtal' is not agricultural land and therefore, Ceiling Act does not apply to this land and therefore, this much land should be excluded from the holding of the land owner for the purpose of determining ceiling area."

4. On the first issue, the findings returned by the learned Single Judge are in paragraph '6.1', which reads as under:-

"6.1 So far as first contention, i.e. whether the petitioner

- Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji (step-son) is entitled to claim one separate unit is concerned, learned Advocate for the petitioner rightly pointed out the definition of term, 'family' contained in Clause-16 of Section-2 of the Act. The said Clause-16 defines joint family to mean 'an undivided Hindu family and in the case of other persons a group or unit the members of which by custom or usage are joint in estate or residence'. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that if the legislature wanted the concept of 'Hindu Undivided Family' to be applicable to all, it would not have provided for the other persons, qua whom, it is specifically provided that, 'in the case of other persons a group or unit the members of which by custom or usage are joint in estate or residence'. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that there is ample evidence placed on record to show that right from the birth, till the sad demise of Maharana Shri, the petitioner was treated as son of Maharana Shri and if that is so, the petitioner has to be considered to be a member of 'joint family' of late Maharana Shri. This Court is also of the opinion that if the legislature had 'Undivided Hindu Family' in mind then it would not have said that, 'in the case of other persons a group or unit the members of which by custom or usage are joint in estate or residence'. Besides, the Hon'ble the Apex Court, in the matter of Sasanka Sekhar Maity (supra), Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined while considering the definition of term, 'joint family' in Section 14K(c) of West Bengal Land Ceiling Act, was pleased to observe in para-38 as under:-

"38. The definition of `family' as contained in s. 14K(c) of the Act, is more realistic than the definitions of this term in similar laws for imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings enacted in other states. The definition is much wider, and far more generous and humane because it takes into consideration the existence of a widowed and divorced daughter, which is absent in other Acts. The meaning given by Explanation I to an adult unmarried person is an inclusive one and it includes a daughter who has been divorced. This necessarily also includes a widowed daughter. By the proviso added to Expln. I, where such widowed daughter is the guardian of any minor son or unmarried daughter, or both, she, together with such minor son or unmarried daughter, or both, shall be deemed to be a separate family. She, therefore, is treated to a raiyat in her own right in relation to her family and her holding is not clubbed with that of her father under s. 14M(2). The benefit provided to a divorced daughter would obviously also extend to a widowed daughter. Explanation II deals with the spouse as in relation to a raiyat who is a woman, reference in cl. (c) to wife's son or daughter, shall be construed as reference to the husband's son or daughter, respectively of such woman. The legislature on a correct perspective has enlarged the definition of a family to the maximum possible extent, and provides for as many as nine members. We fail to appreciate the submission that normally in the family of a raiyat he has his parents to maintain. Such marginal cases would be very few. Normally, the father of a raiyat would have his separate holding and would be entitled to a separate ceiling area of his own determined under s. 14M. The legislature had to draw a line somewhere. By s. 14M(2) (b) it provided for augmenting of the holding of a raiyat to the extent of 7.0 standard Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined hectares by taking into account five plus four, i.e., nine members."

5. On the second issue, the findings in paragraph '6.3' are:-

"6.3 So far as second contention about, 'adopted son - Udaybhansinhji, who expired before the specified date, is entitled to claim one separate unit' is concerned, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that he should also be held entitled to claim one separate unit. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioner submitted that he should also be held entitled to claim one separate unit. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner rightly referred to the 'specified date' and the 'appointed day'. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is right in referring to the fact that the authorities have committed an error in holding that as said Udaybhansinhji died between the 'appointed day' and the 'specified date', he is not entitled to claim any separate unit. The authorities ought to have appreciated that the ceiling area has to be determined and computed with reference to the 'appointed day'. The authorities ought to have appreciated that, 'it is the intent of the legislature that on and after the appointed day, nobody will be entitled to hold the land excess to the ceiling limit'. If that is so, the 'specified date' becomes insignificant when the question of computation and determination of the entitlement arises. If the decision take by the authorities is upheld, it will amount to providing for two 'appointed day' for determining the ceiling limit. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is right in relying upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Patel Panubhai Shanabhai (supra). Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is right in submitting that taking into consideration the interpretation put by this Court in the aforesaid decision, legal representatives of the deceased Udaybhansinhji are entitled to claim one ceiling unit."

6. On the aforesaid two issues, while assailing the aforesaid findings of the learned Single Judge, it was argued by Ms. Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State - respondents that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in giving one unit each to the adopted son, namely Udaybansinhji, and stepson of the original owner, namely Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji.

7. It was submitted that the adopted son, namely Udaybansinhji, was not alive as on 01.04.1976 and hence, one unit for him could not have been allotted considering the amendment brought with effect from 01.04.1976 bringing sub-section (3-C) into Section 6 of the Act, 1960.

8. With regard to the one unit allotted to Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji, stepson of the original owner, it was argued that Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji, being son of the second wife from her first marriage, could not have been included in the family of the original owner as opined by the learned Single Judge. It was, thus, submitted that the stepson could not have been included within the meaning of "major son" of the original owner so as to attract the provisions of sub- section (3-C) of Section 6 of the Act, 1960.

9. Dealing with the above contentions, the provisions of Section 6 (3-C) and (3-D) of the Act, 1960, are to be noted as the outset, which read as under:

"6(3-C) Where a family or a joint family irrespective of the number of members includes a major son, then each major son shall be deemed to be a separate person for the purposes of sub-section (1).

Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined (3-D) For the purpose of sub-section (2), (3B) or (3C) the members comprised in a family or as the case may be, a joint family on the specified date shall alone be taken into consideration and any changes in the character or number of members of the family occurring thereafter shall be ignored."

10. A conjoint reading of sub-section (3-C) and sub-section (3-D) of Section 6 indicates that one unit has to be allocated to the major son, as each "major son" shall be deemed to be a separate person for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 6, which further reads as under:-.

"6. Ceiling on holding land: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any agreement, usage or decree or order of a Court, with effect, from the appointed day no person shall, subject to the provisions of [sub-sections (2), (3), (3-A) and (3-B)] be entitled to hold whether as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant land in excess of the ceiling area."

11. A reading of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with sub- section (3-C) makes it clear that from the "appointed day"

any owner or tenant was not entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area. Sub-Section (3-D) provides that for the purposes of sub-section (3-C) the members comprised in a family or as the case may be, shall be taken into consideration, with reference to the "specified date", and any change in the character or number of the members of the family occurring thereafter shall have to be ignored. The "appointed day" and the "specified date" prescribed under the Act, 1960 are 15.06.1961 and 01.04.1976; respectively.

Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined

12. Thus, for the purposes of sub-section (3-C), a major son of the original owner as on 01.04.1976 was required to be considered as a separate person for the purposes of sub- section (1), and be treated as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant of one unit of the land subject matter of ceiling, under the Act, 1960.

13. For consideration of the land being in excess of the ceiling area, the relevant date would be "appointed day" i.e. 15.06.1961. Thus, taking into consideration the concept of two dates, namely "appointed day" and "specified date" within the scheme of Section 6 of the Act, 1960, it is clear that major son of the original owner as on 01.04.1976 shall be treated as an independent owner of his share of the total land while computing total area being beyond ceiling limit as on 15.06.1961. One unit for him was to be excluded treating him as a separate person by virtue of the deeming fiction of sub- section (3-C) of Section 6 for the purposes of sub-section (1) of the said Section. The result is that no objection could be taken about one unit claimed for Udaybansinhji, the adopted son of the owner, being independent owner of his share in the land in question as on 15.06.1961. There is no dispute that Mr. Udaybansinhji was a major son of the original owner even as on the appointed day i.e. 15.06.1961 itself.

14. No objection, as such, could be taken for allocation of one unit to Udaybansinhji, the adopted son of the original owner by the mere fact that he had died on 20.07.1973, prior Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined to the initiation of the ceiling proceedings. The entitlement of the major son was required to be seen as on 15.06.1961, the appointed day under the scheme of Section 6 sub-section (1) of the Act, 1960.

15. With regard to the step son, namely, Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji, suffice it to say that nowhere in the scheme of the Act, 1960, stepson has been excluded.

16. The definition of "joint family", "owner" and "person" in Sections 2(16), (20) and (21) are relevant for our purposes and are extracted hereinunder:-

"2(16) "Joint family" means an undivided Hindu family and in the case of other persons a group or unit the members of which by custom or usage are joint in estate or residence;

2(20) "owner" in relation land includes a person holding the land as occupant, or land-holder as defined in the relevant Code or as lessee of Government and a person holding land for his maintenance;

2(21)"person" includes a joint family;"

17. A conjoint reading of the said definition clauses of the Act, 1960 makes it clear that the definition of "owner" in relation to the land for the purposes of the Act is inclusive, which include a member of a joint family, namely a Hindu Undivided Family and also includes a group of other persons, or a group of unit, whose members by custom or usage are joint in estate or residence.

Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined

18. There is a categorical finding of the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned that Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji, the stepson of the original owner was treated as son of the original owner right from the birth till the demise of the owner and was a member of the family of the owner, throughout.

19. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 may throw some light as to who could be treated as a member of the joint family, which reads as under:-

"6(2) Where an individual who holds lands, is a member of a family, not being a joint family, and which consists of the individual and his spouse (or more than one spouse) and their minor sons and minor unmarried daughters, irrespective of whether the family also includes any major son and land is also separately held by the individual's spouse or minor children, then the land held by the individual and the said members or the individual's family [excluding major sons, if any] shall be grouped together for the purposes of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall apply to the total land so grouped together as if such land had been held by one person."

20. A careful reading thereof indicates that "joint family"

for being considered under the scheme of the Act, 1960, may consist of an individual and his spouse (or more than one spouse) and their minor sons and minor unmarried daughters, irrespective of whether the family may also include any major son. The provision says that if land is also separately held by the individual's spouse or minor children, then the land held Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined by such individuals and the said members of the individual's family (excluding major sons, if any) shall be grouped together for the purposes of the Act and the provisions of this Act shall apply to the total land so grouped together as if such land had been held by one person. Thus, under the scheme of sub- section (2) of Section 6, the land held by major son in his individual name, has to be excluded, specifically from being considered in the total land held by the joint family as one person.

21. Sub-section (3-C) of Section 6, contains a deeming fiction requiring the major son to be treated as a separate person for the purposes of sub-section (1). There is no exclusion of the stepson or adopted son from the scheme of the Act as "major son" has not been defined or mean to exclude anyone or both of them.

22. Further, in view of the findings that Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji, who is stated to be the stepson of the original owner, right from his birth was residing with the original owner, we find that Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji, stepson of the original owner was entitled to one unit as a separate person within the scheme of Section 6 of the Act, 1960 and has rightly been recognized, as such, by the learned Single Judge.

23. For the above discussion, on the above noted two points, we do not find any error in the decision of the learned Single Judge.

Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined

24. In so far as the third issue with regard to exclusion of an area of 14 acres and 34 gunthas of the land stated to be 'Gamtal' land (not being agricultural land) from the purview of the Act, 1960, pertinent is to note that the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge in that regard, in paragraph '6.4' of the judgment impugned, are not substantiated by any material on record of the writ petition. There is absolutely no averment in the writ petition about the land admeasuring 14 acres and 34 gunthas being 'Gamtal' land including in the computation of ceiling area. It is not understandable from the order impugned as to what prompted the learned Single Judge to record as under:-

"6.4. So far as last contention that, 'land admeasuring 14 acres and 34 gunthas forming part of 'Gamtal' cannot be said to be agricultural land and Ceiling Act will not be applicable to the said land' is concerned, it is apparent from the title of the Act itself that it is applicable only to the 'agricultural lands'. When the land is marked as 'Gamtal' land and it is on record that this land is 'adjacent to the Natwr Baug Complex', it cannot be included in the holding as agricultural land. The fact that no material is placed much less convincing material that the land referred to was subjected to any agricultural operations, there is no reason for the Court to hold that the provisions of the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act will be applicable and therefore, it is decided that provisions of the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act will not be applicable."

25. To understand that we have also digged deep into the entire record of the writ petition. At the outset, we may note that there is absolutely no statement in the writ petition on Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined the said aspect. Neither any ground has been raised about 14 acres and 34 guntha of 'Gamtal' land (not forming part of the agricultural land) owned by the original owner.

26. In the original proceedings, the Mamlatdar vide order dated 31.05.1982 has held that out of total 217.38 acres an area of 114.30 acres was retainable land whereas 103.08 acres was surplus land. A perusal of the order passed by the Mamlatdar indicates that no objection had been taken therein with regard to the land admeasuring 14.34 acres, being 'gamtal' land and, as such, there was no occasion for any discussion therein. In the suo motu revision under Section 37 of the Act, 1960, being Land Ceiling Reference Case No.1 of 1983, it seems that while filing objection to the notice D/1/2/1983, it was stated as under:-

"14. The Tribunal has on the contrary committed an error of law and fact in declaring 103 Acre-8 Gunthas of lands to be surplus land. It is submitted that Gamtel land admeasuring 14 Acre-34 Gunthas and land called "Tali"

admeasuring 2 Acres 4 Gunthas are not agricultural lands which can be taken into account by the Tribunal while declaring surplus lands and the same have to be excluded for the purpose of such declaration. Therefore, on exclusion of these 16 Acres-38 Gunthas of land the surplus land with the opponent would aggregate to 86 Acres 10 Gunthas."

27. Further prayers made therein are as under:-

"15. The opponent therefore prays as under:-

(A) It is held that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the lands in dispute being the private Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined property of an Indian Ruler.

(B) In the alternative, it is held that the opponent is entitled to 3 units and accordingly entitled to hold land aggregating to 172 Acre-5 Gunthas and it be declared that only 28 Acre 35 Gunthas of lands are surplus lands.

(C) In the second alternative, it be held that the opponent is entitled to hold additional 11 Acre-19 Gunthas of land being 1/5th of the Ceiling area on account of Premkunvarba and thus entitled to hold in aggregate 126 Acres-9 Gunthas of land and therefore 74 Acre-31 Gunthas of land be declared to be surplus land.

(D) In the third alternative since 16 Acres-38 Gunthas of Gamtal & Tali lands are not agricultural lands it be declared that the surplus land aggregate to 86 Acres 10 Gunthas.

(E) The notice issued on 1-2-83 by this Hon'ble Court be ordered to be discharged and the order of the Tribunal be confirmed.

(F) Any other relief just and proper under the circumstances of the case be awarded to the opponent."

28. In the revisional order dated 30.03.1983 passed by the Deputy Collector, the following has been observed:-

"(૮) સામાવાલાના વિધ્વાન વકીલશ્રીએ વધારામાં એવી દુ લીલ કરી છે કે ગામતળની જમીન એ.૧૪-૩૪ ગુઠ ં ા તથા ખેતીની જમીન એ.૨-૪ ગુ.ં જમીન તે ખેતીની જમીન નથી તેથી તેને બાદ ગણવી જોઈએ. સામાવાલાએ આ પ્રકારની રજુઆત કૃષિપંચ સમક્ષ કરેલ નથી. તેમજ કૃષિપંચના કામના કે શ જોતાં આ જમીન પણ ખેતીની જ છે . ગામતળ અને વળી એ ખેતરના નામ માત્ર છે . તેથી આ દલીલ પણ માન્ય રાખવા પાત્ર નથી."

English translation :

(8) The learned advocate for the opponent has further argued that the village site (gamtal) land admeasuring Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined Acre 14-34 gunthas and the agricultural land admeasuring Acre 2-4 gunthas is not agricultural land, and therefore, it should be excluded. The opponent did not make such a submission before the Agricultural Tribunal (Krishi Panch). Furthermore, looking at the case records of the Agricultural Tribunal, this land is also agricultural. 'Gamtal' (Village site) and that too is merely names of the field. Therefore, this argument is also not liable to be accepted."

29. We may further note that in the revision filed under Section 38 of the Act, 1960 bearing Revision Application (Land Ceiling) No.141 of 1983, no such issue was raised. A perusal of the copy of the memo of revision filed by the petitioner appended in the writ petition as Annexure 'F' indicates that the petitioner had not raised any specific dispute with regard to 14 acres and 34 gunthas of the land, being 'gamtal' land (not agricultural land). However, the prayers made therein are to be looked into, which are as under:-

"(E) It be further held that 16A-38G of lands out of the total lands are Gamtal Lands and not agricultural lands not liable to be declared as surplus lands.

(F) In the second alternative, the matter be remanded to the Mamlatdar for fresh inquiry and decision according to law after issuing notice to all the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Maharanashri Natwarsinhji of Porbandar.

(G) Any other relief just and proper under the circumstances of the case be awarded to the applicant."

30. A further perusal of the order passed the Gujarat Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined Revenue Tribunal indicates that the tribunal has not dealt with the issue of 'gamtal' land (not agricultural land) having been included in the surplus land declared by the competent authority.

31. It is, thus, evident that the petitioner though raised the issue pertaining to 14 acres and 34 gunthas of 'gamtal' land having been included in the surplus area declared by the competent authority, intermittently before different authorities, but, at least, there was no material before the learned Single Judge to return a positive finding to the extent that the said area was required to be excluded from the provisions of the Act, 1960. This finding in paragraph '6.4' of the judgment impugned is bereft of any pleading or material evidence on record of the writ petition and, as such, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

32. Furthermore, the question as to whether the land admeasuring 14 acres and 34 gunthats forming part of 'gamtal' (not agricultural land) had been included in the total surplus land declared by the competent authority required a factual inquiry, which could not have been conducted within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

33. We, therefore, set aside the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 02/04.02.2011 for exclusion of 14 acres and 34 gunthas of land from the purview of the Act, 1960.

Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined

34. However, having noticed that the issue with regard to exclusion of 'Gamtal' area of 14 acres and 34 gunthas from the purview of the Act, 1960 had been agitated by the petitioner before the Deputy Collector itself but the same has not been dealt with in a proper manner, we are of the considered opinion that a fresh inquiry is required to be made on the said aspect.

35. Furthermore, there was a prayer in the memo of revision filed before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, but there is no discussion in the judgment and order dated 25.08.1989 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.B.R.141/1983 on the said aspect. In order to bring the said controversy to its logical end, we are, of the view that inquiry in that regard is required to be made at the ends of the Tribunal.

36. Holding the above, the judgment and order dated 02 / 04.02.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in setting aside the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is modified to the above extent, reviving the Revision Application No. TEN.B.R.141/1983 for fresh adjudication by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, on the limited issue of exclusion of 14 acres and 34 gunthas of 'gamtal' (not agricultural land) from the purview of the Ceiling Act, 1960, claimed by the petitioner.

37. On the remaining two aspects, the judgment and order dated 02 / 04.02.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby affirmed.

Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined

38. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT) is directed to conclude the enquiry at the earliest, after looking to the relevant records and providing due opportunity of hearing to all concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the receipt of the copy of this order.

39. With the above, the appeal stands allowed, in part.

(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.) (D.N.RAY, J.) siji Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Dec 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 16 20:31:44 IST 2026

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court