Gujarat High Court
Kishor Bhagwandas Sadhwani, Legal ... vs State Of Gujarat on 28 April, 2026
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1195 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1
of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1195 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
===================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
===================================================
KISHOR BHAGWANDAS SADHWANI, LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE
BHAGWANDAS ROCHIRAM SADHWANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
===================================================
Appearance:
MR. MIHIR THAKORE, Senior Counsel with MR. SAURABH
SOPARKAR, Senior Counsel assisted by MR. DHRUVIN N
DOSSANI(10528) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. ARJAN R GAMARA(7131) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR. DHAVAL VYAS, Senior Counsel assisted by MS. KITTY S
MEHTA(7025) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR. R.S. SANJANWALA, Senior Counsel assisted by MR. ROHAN
A SHAH(7497) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
===================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Page 1 of 52
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
Date : 28/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dhruvin N. Dossani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel assisted ssby Mr. Rohan Shah, Mr. Dhavsal Vyas, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Kitty S. Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.6 and 4 respectively and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the respondent - State authorities.
2. Notice came to be issued on 03.02.2026 in the captioned petition, wherein, by interim order, the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. BA/3 of 2014 is directed not to be implemented, till the next returnable date.
3. The Civil Application No. 1 of 2026 is preferred by the private respondent no.6 under Article-226 (3) of the Constitution of India, seeking vacation of ad-interim relief granted vide order dated 03.02.2026.
4. With the consent of the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken-up for final hearing.
Page 2 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined
5. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein challenges the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (for short 'the GRT') in Revision Application No. BA/3/2014, duly produced at Annexure- A. Though the petitioner herein is not a party to the proceedings under the provisions of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'the Tenancy Act'), from which the impugned order arises, nonetheless, seeks to challenge the said order, on the basis that the petitioner maintains the possession and other rights over the suit property, as mentioned in paragraph 2.5 of the petition, i.e. 'Old Tenure Agricultural Land bearing Revenue Survey No. 231 (Old Survey No. 145 paiki) situated at District: Gandhinagar, Sub-District: Gandhinagar, Taluka: Koteshwar admeasuring 8323 sq.mtrs.' [for short 'the land in question/ land in dispute/subject matter land'], for adjudication of which, the petitioner has instituted Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 2026 before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Gandhinagar. The petitioner herein is directly affected by the impugned order, wherein, he has not been heard, the same has given rise to the filing of the present petition, for the following reliefs:
"VI: Prayer Clause
9. The Petitioner, therefore, prays as follows:
A. Be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.BA/3 of 2014; (Annexure-A).Page 3 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined B. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Petition, be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and effect of the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. BA/3 of 2014 (Annexure-A):;
C. Such further and other relief, order or direction which may be just, fit, proper and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the Petition."
6.1. Briefly stated that, the petitioner herein is the legal heir of Bhagwandas Rochiram Sadhwani, who passed away on 02.10.2023, leaving behind three legal heirs, viz. Manoj Sadhwani, Neetu @ Kanchan Uttamchandani, and Kishor Sadhwani, wherein, by virtue of a Will dated 06.10.2022, bequeathed all the rights pertaining to the subject matter property to the petitioner including the right/ authority to take legal action regarding the same.
6.2. The respondents Nos. 4 and 5 being erstwhile owners of the subject matter property, sold the same to the respondent No. 6 on 31.03.2000 through three registered sale deeds bearing nos. 1595, 1596, and 1597. The respondent no.6 as owner of the subject matter property has executed an agreement to sale (for short 'ATS') and Possession Agreement in favour of the father of the petitioner on 28.01.2008 for the property in question, i.e. 'Old Tenure Agricultural Land bearing Revenue Survey No. 231 (Old Survey No. 145 paiki) situated at District: Gandhinagar, Sub- District: Gandhinagar, Taluka: Koteshwar admeasuring 8323 Page 4 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined sq.mtrs.', the said consideration of the subject matter property was agreed at the rate of Rs.5850/- per sq.yard. The petitioner relies upon the clauses- 5, 11, 15, 17 and 20 of the said agreement to sale. On 18.03.2008, the petitioner's father through his advocate published a public notice inviting objections to the title of the subject matter property (Annexure-E). The objections dated 19.03.2008 and 06.04.2008 came to be raised by third parties, through Advocate Mr. Karansingh G. Vaghela, stating pendency of civil litigation with respect to the entire Survey no. 145 which includes the subject matter property, whereby preventing the issuance of a title clearance certificate.
6.3. On 02.05.2008, the respondent No. 6 executed a possession agreement and handed over the physical possession of the subject matter property to the petitioner's father. It is the case of the petitioner that the possession still continues with the petitioner, even as on date.
6.4. Despite the respondent no.6 failing to provide the clear title of the subject matter property by 15.03.2008, the petitioner's father continued to make payments under the ATS, solely on the assurances of the respondent no.6 that the title clearance would be provided shortly. The petitioner's father had paid a total sum of Rs.2,36,00,000/- to the respondent no.6 under ATS by 24.04.2010, despite the respondent no.6 not Page 5 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined initiating the N.A. permission process or furnishing title clearance as contractually required.
6.5. On 31.10.2010, notwithstanding the receipt of substantial payments and his own non-compliance with the ATS, respondent No. 6 issued a notice to the petitioner's father to rescind the ATS and demanded the possession of the subject matter property (Annexure-H). The petitioner's father replied to the said notice on 11.11.2010 and 22.11.2010, asserting his readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration and execute the sale deed, upon the respondent no.6 complying with the terms of the ATS and that in absence of such compliance, the respondent no.6 has no right to rescind the ATS or forfeit the token amount.
6.6. The respondent no.6 neither replied to the aforesaid communications nor refunded any amount received under the ATS nor took any steps to recover possession of the subject matter property. By such conduct, the respondent no.6 effectively abandoned and did not act upon the notice dated 31.10.2010. Further, as the proceedings under the Tenancy Act, 1948 were on-going in relation to the subject matter property, the respondent no.6 arrived at an understanding with father of the petitioner that once he succeeds in such proceedings only then, he can and will perform his part under ATS and execute the sale deed.
Page 6 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined 6.7. The respondent no.6 had purchased the subject matter property as referred to herein-above vide three registered sale deeds dated 31.03.2000 in the capacity of an agriculturist. Upon coming to the knowledge of the authority that the respondent no.6 was not holder of the status of the agriculturist/ farmer, the learned Collector, Gandhinagar initiated the proceedings against the respondent no.6 under the Tenancy Act, 1948 for the subject matter property bearing Ganot Case No. 101 of 2006.
6.8. The learned Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar by order dated 28.06.2009 passed in Ganot Case No. 101 of 2006, held that since the transfer of the subject matter property is in violation of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act, the property would be vested in the State Government under Section 84(C)(2), unless the parties restore the land to its original state within 90 days (Annexure-J).
6.9. The respondent no.6 preferred Appeal before the respondent no.2 - learned Deputy Collector, by way of Ganot Appeal No. 72 of 2009. Pending the said Appeal, the respondent no.6 approached the GRT, wherein, the GRT ordered status-quo over the subject matter property, till the disposal of Ganot Appeal No. 72 of 2009 by order dated 14.09.2010.
6.10. By order dated 15.11.2013, the Appeal No.72 of 2009 came to be dismissed, confirming the order passed by the respondent no.3 - learned Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar dated Page 7 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined 28.06.2009.
6.11. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no.6 preferred Revision Application No. 3 of 2014 before the learned GRT, wherein, pending the Revision Application, the learned GRT ordered status-quo on the subject matter property, by an order dated 28.02.2014.
6.12. In the interregnum period, pending the Revision Application, the respondent no.6 pursued the Revision Application and assured the petitioner's father that once he succeeds, he will perform his part of the ATS and execute the sale deed. In between certain minor differences arose between the father of the petitioner and the respondent no.6, however, subsequently they were sorted out.
6.13. On 01.09.2025, after more than 10 years, upon the undertaking of the respondent no.6, to comply with the order of the respondent no.3 - Mamlatdar dated 28.06.2009 to restore the subject matter property to its original status, the learned GRT passed the impugned order allowing the same. Hence the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.3 for implementation of the undertaking given by the respondent no.6. The aforesaid order passed by the GRT, is impugned herein, the same has given rise to the filing of the present petition, wherein, it is the case of the petitioner that the undertaking provided by the Page 8 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined respondent no.6 before the GRT, constitutes an act of fraud and collusion perpetuated against the petitioner.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY MR. SOPARKAR, THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:
7.1. Mr. Soparkar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relies on the facts as referred to herein-above and relies on the condition nos. 3, 5, 15, 17 and 20 of the ATR.
7.2. Reliance is placed on mutation entry, duly produced at pg.44/A dated 27.03.2001.
7.3. It is submitted that an undertaking given by the respondent no.6 before the GRT is collusive.
7.4. Placing reliance on the termination notice dated 31.10.2010, it is submitted that, the said notice is unilateral. Reliance is placed on Para-11 at page-79/E. 7.5. Reliance is also placed on the reply to the notice by the petitioner's father dated 22.10.2022.
7.6. It is submitted that, though the agreement to sale is an unregistered ATS, is not in dispute, however, the same is admissible in evidence.
7.7. It is submitted that, the suo-motu powers under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act cannot be exercised beyond the Page 9 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined reasonable period.
In the facts of the present case, admittedly, the respondent authorities exercised the suo-motu powers after a period of 6 years and in view thereof, the respondent no.6 has a good case on merits and therefore, ought not to have given an undertaking.
7.8. Mr. Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel relies on the following decisions:
(A) 2008 (14) SCC 258
(B) (1997) 6 SCC 71
(C) (1981) 1 SCC 80
(D) 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2378
(E) (2003) 8 SCC 319
(F) (2007) 7 SCC 482
(G) (2003) 8 SCC 319
(H) (2010) 5 SCC 401
(I) LPA No. 325 of 2011, date of judgment - 09.09.2011
(J) FA No. 16389 of 2023 (pa-70 to 86) (para-86)
In sum and substance of Mr. Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel is that, the order of the GRT dated 01.09.2025 is collusive order.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY MR. R.S. SANJANWALA, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.6 :
Page 10 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined
8.1. Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner herein has no locus-standi to file the present petition on the following grounds:
A. The petitioner herein is not a party to the proceedings, initiated under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act, against the private respondent no.6. The petitioner herein is not interested person.
B. It is submitted that the petitioner is filing the present Petition on the basis of a Will dated 06.02.2022, whereby, the petitioner was devolved with the subject land by late Shri Bhagwandas Rochiram Sadhwani, i.e. father of the petitioner. The petitioner's father was a holder of an unregistered agreement to sale, in whose favour, the respondent no.6 executed an unregistered agreement to sale on 28.01.2008 and possession agreement dated 02.05.2008, which eventually came to be cancelled by way of advocate notice dated 31.10.2010. While filing the present petition, petitioner herein is not an agreement to sale holder with regard to the subject matter property, having no locus to file the present petition.
C. It is submitted that, the petitioner has also preferred the Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 2026 seeking specific performance of the agreement to sale dated 28.01.2008. In the said suit, the petitioner had also prayed to hold the cancellation of the Page 11 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined agreement to sale vide communications dated 31.10.2010 is illegal, unjust and arbitrary. It is submitted that, unless there is a decision from the competent Court holding that the communication dated 31.10.2010 is illegal and invalid, till then the petitioner has otherwise no right, title, authority or interest in the subject land, and hence the petitioner has no locus to file the present petition.
D. It is submitted that, so far as the possession of the subject matter land is concerned, the same is not with the petitioner. The petitioner herein is relying on the possession agreement dated 02.05.2008 which is unregistered. It is well settled position of law that, possession of the agreement to sale holder can only be established / believed by way of a registered document. In the present case, both the agreement to sale dated 28.01.2008 and possession agreement dated 02.05.2008 are unregistered documents.
E. It is further submitted that, the proceedings being Ganot Case No. 101 of 2006 initiated under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act, the Mamlatdar & ALT, vide order dated 28.06.2009 vested the subject land in favour of the State Government, subject to restoration of the same, upon filing an Undertaking by the parties to the proceedings, to its original state within 90 days, of passing of the order. In view thereof, the subject land is Page 12 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined vested with the State Government and the name of the State Government is mutated in the revenue record vide mutation entry no. 839 (Annexure-R-1). It is submitted that, once the subject land is mutated with the State Government, it cannot be said that the petitioner herein is in possession of the subject land.
F. It is submitted that, even assuming, without admitting, that the petitioner herein is still an agreement to sale holder, even then an agreement to sale will not create any interest on the subject land. It is submitted that, the legislative mandate vis-a-vis Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act is clear that only interested person can file an application for initiation of Section 84 (C) of the Tenancy Act, however, the agreement to sale does not confer any interest in the subject land, and therefore, the petitioner is not an interested party and hence, no locus to file the present petition.
G. It is submitted that, the right, title and interest of the petitioner is dependent upon the respondent no.6's title. The petitioner cannot get a better title than that of the respondent No.6. The Mamlatdar and Krushipanch vide order dated 28.06.2009 and the Deputy Collector vide order dated 15.11.2013 held that the respondent no.6 is not an agriculturist. It is further submitted that, the Mamlatdar and Krushipanch in its order dated 28.06.2009, in accordance with the legislative mandate held that the subject land can be restored to is original position upon filing Page 13 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined of an undertaking by the parties within 90 days from the date of passing of the order. In view thereof, the legislative mandate itself provides to restore the subject land back to its original state. Under such circumstances, the right of the petitioner is bound by the legislative mandate under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, 1948.
H. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the impugned order will not render the civil proceedings / civil suit preferred by the petitioner herein infructuous. It is submitted that, pending the claim, if any, the petitioner can certainly be pursued in the civil suit. It is submitted that, the petitioner was never in possession of the subject land and there is no documentary proof produced on record demonstrating the possession of the petitioner.
I. It is reiterated that, there is absence of any documentary proof produced on record, wherein, the petitioner having stated that an amount of Rs.2,36,00,000/- are paid to the respondent no.6. It is submitted that, the agreement to sale was terminated vide communication dated 31.10.2010, the respondent no.6 categorically stated that the petitioner only paid an amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/- under the agreement to sale dated 28.01.2008. Against the said communication, a reply dated 11.11.2010 was issued by the petitioner, which does not clarify Page 14 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined the position about the payment of Rs.2,36,00,000/- to the respondent no.6 under the agreement to sale dated 28.01.2008. Even if for the sake of argument, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.2,36,00,000/-, the same is required to be proved and pursued before the competent Civil Court. The impugned order would in no way cause any irrepealable loss to the petitioner, upon implementation of the impugned order.
J. It is submitted that, as on date the petitioner herein is not an agreement to sale holder, as a consequence thereto, the petitioner has no locus to agitate his rights before this Court under writ-jurisdiction. The petitioner's father, who being agreement to sale holder never thought it fit to pursue the appropriate remedy before the appropriate Court of law, after the notice dated 31.10.2010. It is now after more than 15 years, the petitioner, i.e. son of the agreement to sale holder, is agitating his right in the writ-jurisdiction. Therefore, no protection can be granted to such litigant, who otherwise has not been vigilant of his rights and now after more than a decade wishes to pursue his rights.
K. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the present Petition deserves to be dismissed.
L. To fortify his submissions, Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel relies on the following decisions:
Page 15 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined (I) 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 250517 in the case of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation v/s. State of Gujarat. (II) 2025 (2) GLR 1339 in the case of Nayankumar Bhagvanbhai Patel Mevda v/s. Ashokbhai Chhotabhai Patel & Ors . (III) (2012) 1 SCC 656 in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v/s. State of Haryana and Another. (IV) (2023) 20 SCC 655 in the case of Shakeel Ahmed v/s. Syed Akhlaq Hussain.
(V) (2001) 6 SCC 748 in the case of Union of India and others v/s. Shatabadi Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. and others.
SUBMISSIONS OF MR. DHAVAL VYAS, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4:
9.1. Mr. Dhaval Vyas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 adopts the submissions advanced by Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6.
9.2. Over and above the aforesaid, it is submitted that, the respondent no.4 herein is a small agriculturist and the land in question is only the source of livelihood. It is submitted that, the interim order dated 03.02.2026 causes serious prejudice to the respondent no.6. It is well settled position of law that the interim relief cannot be continued, when the petitioner fails to Page 16 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined establish the prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. It is submitted that, the petitioner on the basis of the agreement to sale has no right to assail the impugned order, more so, the petitioner is not a party to the said transaction. It is submitted that, it is well settled principle of property law that no person can transfer a better title than they possess. The respondent no.6 being a non-agriculturist, was legally barred from purchasing the subject agricultural land. Since the respondent no.6 never held a valid title, he was remediless and was never in a position to execute any valid deed or agreement with the petitioner's father.
9.3. It is submitted that the unregistered agreement to sale dated 28.01.2008 is a nullity ab-intio, as both the petitioner and the respondent no.6 are non-agriculturists, the purported agreement violates the statutory bar under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act.
9.4. Upon inquiring that the respondent no.6 was a non-
agriculturist, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Gandhinagar, initiated the proceedings under the Tenancy Act being Ganot Case No. 101 of 2006. On 28.06.2009, the Mamlatdar held that the transfer violated Section-63 of the Tenancy Act and ordered that the property vest in the State Government under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act removing all encumbrances unless restored to its original position within 90 days.
Page 17 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined 9.5. It is submitted that, the entry no. 839 vesting in the State, produced by the petitioner himself, wherein, 7/12 abstract at page-40-41 of the petition reflects that the land in question vests with the State Government for more than 15 to 20 years and despite such knowledge, the petitioner never challenged the vesting or sought specific performance against the State Government during the said period. The petitioner remained silent for nearly two decades, while the land was vested in the State. No proceedings for specific performance or claims against the State were initiated during the period, rendering the current petition hit by the doctrine of laches.
9.6. It is submitted that, in view of the inevitable position, categorically concerned before the GRT, the fact that the position was restored in terms of the liberty granted by the Mamlatdar vide order dated 28.06.2009 at Annexure-J, page no.85 of the petition. The said order, which merely extends the time frame beyond 90 days under the directions of the Mamlatdar, cannot be assailed by the petitioner either on facts or for want of legal standing. It is reiterated that the petitioner, though aware of the impugned proceedings, has never sought impleadment before the Collector or the GRT.
9.7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay Page 18 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined of nearly 18 years. Further, the petitioner has filed Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 2026 challenging the 2008 agreement to sale, however, the petitioner has no legal basis to implead respondent no.4 in the said suit. The respondent no. 4 was neither a party to, nor aware of the private agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent no.6.
9.8. It is submitted that, pursuant to the alleged agreement to sale dated 28.01.2008, the petitioner's father never took steps during his lifetime. A Civil Suit has been instituted on 15.01.2026, merely six days before filing the present petition, which in the submissions of Mr. Vyas, Senior Counsel is a gross abuse of the process of law and is barred by law.
9.9. It is submitted that the private agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 6 was executed without the knowledge or consent of respondent No. 4. It is not binding upon respondent no.4 and creates no rights in favor of the petitioner.
9.10. It is submitted that the petitioner, having never been a party to the 84(C) proceedings before the Mamlatdar, Collector or GRT, cannot now challenge the GRT's order, and in view thereof also, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
9.11. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands, suppressing material facts and misrepresenting the legal status of an unenforceable Page 19 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined agreement, and in view thereof also, the petition deserves to be dismissed. The present petition is devoid of any merits and required to be rejected at the threshold. In view thereof, the interim relief granted, deserves to be vacated in the interest of justice.
9.12. Reliance is placed on the decision rendered in the case of Bhikchand s/o. Dhondiram Mutha (deceased) through legal heirs v/s. Shamabai Dhanraj Gugale (deceased) through lgal heirs reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 929.
10.1. In rejoinder Mr. Thakore, learned Senior Counsel submits thus (relevant para-3.1 to 3.9 of the rejoinder reads thus):
"3.1. As per the orders under The Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 qua suit property being Old Tenure Agricultural Land Bearing Revenue Survey No. 231 (Old Survey No. 145 paiki) situated at District: Gandhinagar, Sub-District:
Gandhinagar, Taluka: Koteshwar admeasuring 8323 sq mtrs.", it is recorded that status of Respondent no.6 as agriculturist was based upon him acquiring land at Survey no. 140, Mauje: Raysan, District: Gandhinagar by virtue of a will. The entry in relation to this will came to be mutated in revenue records vide Entry No. 1700 in the year 1994.
3.2. That, in regard to above land at Survey No. 140, Mauje: Raysan, in the year 2005, vide Ganot Case no. 7/05 proceedings under Section 84C of Tenancy Act, 1948 came to be initiated against Respondent no.6. 3.3. On 12.10.2006, the proceedings in Ganot Case no.
7/05 were concluded following the closure of inquiry. In other words, the said proceedings were dismissed. 3.4. Thereafter in 2007, proceedings impugning revenue entry no. 1700 were initiated under the provisions of Gujarat Page 20 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined Land Revenue Code, 1879 wherein vide order dated 30.07.2008 Revenue Entry no. 1700 came to be quashed and set aside. These proceedings are assailed by Respondent no.6 in following manner:
i. Against this order, Respondent no. 6 filed revision application before Ld. Secretary Appeals, Gandhinagar which came to be rejected by way of order dated 31.03.2009.
ii. Against this rejection, Respondent no. 6 preferred Special Civil Application no. 7940 of 2009 before Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, which is currently pending. iii. It is pertinent to note that in this Petition, vide order dated 04.03.2010, this Hon'ble Court has stayed the implementation of orders passed by Ld. Collector and Ld. Secretary Appeals and has issued rule in the matter. A copy of case status of Special Civil Application no. 7940 of 2009 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- A/1. A copy of order dated 04.03.2010 passed in Special Civil Application no. 7940 of 2009 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A/2 3.5. Pursuant thereto, proceedings under Section 84C, that had been dismissed upon closure of inquiry by Ld. Mamlatdar, were again reopened in Revision application no. 7/07 by Ld. Deputy Collector. In the said Revision Application, vide order dated 08.10.2008, it came to be held that transfer of land by way of will is in violation of Section 63 and hence under Section 84C an order came to be passed qua land at Survey No. 140, Mauje: Raysan.
3.6. Against above order, under Section 84C, Respondent no. 6 preferred Revision Application no. 206 of 2008 before Ld. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. In this application, Respondent no. 6 contested his case and vide order dated 21.11.2022, Ld. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has remanded the matter back to Ld. Mamlatdar. A copy of order dated 21.11.2022 passed in Revision Application no. 206 of 2008 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A/3 3.7. It is an undisputed fact, that entire status of Respondent no. 6 as agriculturist hinges upon the proceedings with respect to land at Mauje: Raysan, as he does not hold any other agricultural property which will entitle him the status of an agriculturist. The entire proceedings for subject property Page 21 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined under Section 84C came to be initiated on the premise that status of respondent no. 6 as agriculturist is stripped off, in view of orders passed in above proceedings with respect to land at Mauje: Raysan. The order under Section 84C passed in relation to land at Mauje: Raysan is based upon Revenue Entry no. 1700 being quashed and set aside. The quashing of this entry is stayed by this Hon'ble Court in SCA No. 7940 of 2009. Moreover, the proceedings under Section 84C have also been remanded back to Ld. Mamlatdar vide order dated 21.11.2022 passed by Ld. GRT.
3.8. Despite above orders qua land at Mauje: Raysan and even otherwise, in view of settled law that proceedings under Section 84C are to be initiated within reasonable time of 1 year which is not the case here for subject property, as sale of the year 2000 is questioned in the year 2006 vide Ganot Case no. 101 of 2006, Respondent no. 6 gave an undertaking to restore the subject property back to Respondent no. 4 and 5. This act is nothing but collusion solely aimed at frustrating the agreement to sale held by Petitioner.
3.9. In view of above facts showing clear collusion, present Petition deserves to be allowed."
10.2. It is submitted that, since the argument is advanced by the respondent that the petitioner herein is not a party before the GRT cannot challenge its order under Articles-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is misconceived.
10.3. The petitioner herein is an interested party as ultimately, it is his agreement to sale that shall be frustrated upon implementation of the order of the GRT. The said order is passed in view of an undertaking of the respondent no.6 to restore the land back to the respondent nos. 4 and 5. Thus, as this will directly affect the present petitioner, the petitioner derives locus to challenge the order which is passed solely upon Page 22 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined an undertaking by the respondent no.6. The notice issued by the respondent no.6 to the late father of the petitioner to terminate the agreement to sale was replied to by the petitioner's father, wherein, it was clearly demonstrated that he was ready and willing to pay the balance consideration and execute a sale deed, upon the respondent no.6 complying with the terms of the ATS, and that in absence of such compliance, the respondent no.6 has no locus to rescind the ATS or forfeit the token amount. The essence of ATS was not timely payments but providing clear title property and initiating procedure for providing NA certificate of the subject property, only upon which payment deadline obligation of the petitioner's father under the ATS triggered.
10.4. The respondent no.6 neither replied to the said communications nor refunded any amount received under the ATS, nor took any steps to recover possession of the suit property. By such conduct, the respondent no.6 effectively abandoned and did not act upon the notice dated 31.10.2010. Moreover, as proceedings under the Tenancy Act 1948 were ongoing in relation to the suit property, the respondent no.6 arrived at an understanding with the petitioner's father that once he succeeds in such proceedings, only then he can and will perform the ATS and execute the sale deed.
10.5. Answering the contention raised by the respondent no.6, it is submitted that since the prayer is sought in a Special Page 23 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined Civil Suit to declare the termination of agreement to sale as invalid, unless that is adjudicated, agreement to sale in law is terminated, it is submitted that in view of the fact that the notice dated 31.10.2010 is abandoned by the respondent no.6, which is averred in the suit as well, and therefore the relief is claimed to declare the said termination as void ab-initio. Hence, as this is a declaratory prayer, it cannot be used against the petitioner to contend that only upon adjudication of this prayer in suit, will the termination held to be invalid.
10.6. The respondent nos.6 and 4 submitted that, there is a mutation of State Government on subject property vide mutation Entry No.839, and as possession agreement is unregistered, it cannot be argued that the petitioner is holding possession of the subject matter property. In response to the same, it is submitted that in the notice dated 31.10.2010, the respondent no.6 admitted the petitioner having possession of the subject matter property. Moreover, since 14.09.2010 till the passing of the impugned order, there was status-quo on the subject matter property. Thus, the petitioner's possession cannot be questioned.
10.7. With respect to the mutation entry in the name of the respondent State, it is submitted that, this mutation entry at best is only entered the name of the State Government over the subject matter property in revenue records. However, the Page 24 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined possession has throughout remained with the petitioner. Reliance is placed on some photographs of the subject matter property showing possession of the petitioner on the subject property. It is submitted that, the agreement to sale holder with possession and with pending Suit certainly has an interest in the suit property for which has locus to assail any order qua such disputed property to protect his interest, especially when such orders are passed on collusion between the parties to such proceedings.
10.8. It is submitted that, on the legislative mandate under Section 84-C providing restoration of land within 90 days of the order, the present case is one where upon collusion the respondent nos. 4 to 6 have voluntarily given an undertaking to restore the land after pursuing the proceedings. Such undertaking is an afterthought only to defeat the rights of the petitioner under the agreement to sale. Hence, this order is passed in such facts and undertaking given, with a motive to defeat the petitioner's agreement to sale, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the contention of the respondent no.6 be dismissed on the threshold.
10.9. It is submitted that, since the proceedings under Section 84-C began in the year 2006 and as the agreement to sale is after that, so that the right of the petitioner will be subject to the outcome of the tenancy proceedings. In response to this, it is submitted that the petitioner was never made aware Page 25 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined about the time of the agreement to sale, that the proceedings under the Tenancy Act, 1948 qua subject property are pending, and original respondent no.6 having suppressed that, cannot take advantage of it now. Also, respondent no.6 was still a farmer at the time of the agreement to sale dated 28.01.2008. The order under Section 84-C is only passed after execution of agreement to sale and possession agreement, in view of which the contention is of no relevance.
10.10. It is submitted that the respondent no.6 has admitted that it could not provide clear property /title of property due to external circumstances. It is submitted by respondent no.6 that such questions would be decided in a Civil Suit, in view of which, the present petition deserves to be dismissed, as the suit itself would be frustrated, in case the impugned order is not quashed and set aside, and it is even the say of the respondent no.6 that certain issues raised in the petition could be adjudicated only in the Suit.
10.11. The contention that the petitioner has not made payment of Rs.2,36,00,000/- to the respondent no.6 is stated to be false, by Mr. Thakore, learned Senior Counsel.
10.12. Answering the contention raised by the respondent no.6 that the petitioner instituted suit after a delay of more than 18 years for agreement to sale, it is submitted that it Page 26 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined is only upon passing of the impugned order that the cause of action arose for preferring the suit. As the undertaking is provided by the respondent no.6 to transfer the land back to the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in teeth of agreement to sale of the petitioner, it is only at this time that the cause of action arose and the petitioner having sufficiently explained as to why the suit is preferred recently, the same cannot be a basis to oppose the petition.
10.13. It is submitted that at several places the respondent no.6 cites pendency of the suit to adjudicate certain issues raised by the petitioner. This itself shows that the suit proceedings are vital for adjudication of the dispute as per the admission of the respondent no.6 to arrive at a just conclusion. In view thereof also, the said suit will be frustrated, in view of which the impugned order passed by the learned GRT is required to be quashed and set aside.
10.14. In rejoinder to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel of the respondent no.4, it is submitted that though the agreement to sale is an unregistered agreement to sale, however, has a right to file suit for specific performance and enforce the agreement which is already done, and therefore the argument of non-registration of agreement to sale is irrelevant and non-consequential for adjudication of the dispute in question. The argument of the petitioner not being an Page 27 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined agriculturist is again irrelevant as provided under the Specific Performance Act. As per settled law, still a decree of performance can be granted subject to compliance of Section 63. Hence, being premature and baseless, the said argument deserves no consideration.
10.15. It is submitted that, there is no delay in the present case as cause of action arose only on passing of the impugned order. The respondent no.4 is not impleaded in the suit and hence the argument raised in para-10 of the reply is factually incorrect. The land is not restored in favor of the respondent no.4, so the argument of her not knowing about the agreement to sale between the petitioner and respondent no.6 and the same not binding upon the respondent no.4, is meritless.
10.16. In view of the aforesaid, the prayers as prayed for in the present petition be allowed. Reliance is placed once again on the ratio laid down in 2005 (3) SCC 342 in case of Devalsab (dead) by LRs versus Ibrahim Sab F. Karajagi and another .
ANALYSIS:
11.1. The facts germane for adjudication of the dispute in question, wherein, the petitioner herein challenges the impugned order passed by the GRT dated 01.09.2025 passed in Revision Application No. BA/3 of 2014, on the ground that, though the Page 28 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined petitioner herein was not party to the said proceedings under the Tenancy Act, 1948, on the basis that the petitioner maintains the possession and other rights over the 'subject matter land / land in question' for adjudication of which, the petitioner herein has also instituted the Special Civil Suit before the Hon'ble Principle Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar being Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 2026. Accordingly, as the petitioner herein is directly affected by the impugned order, wherein, the petitioner has not been heard, the present petition is filed.
11.2. At this stage, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant part of the said order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the GRT (pg.26), which reads thus (true translation):
"5. Looking to the contentions and necessary documents produced by all the parties, disputed land has been transferred by way of sale. Considering it as a violation of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act, it has been ordered by the Executive Magistrate and Agricultural Land Tribunal that if the disputed land is not brought back to it's original condition within 90 days, then the case shall be disposed off as per Section 84(4) of the Tenancy Act by vesting possession of the land upon the State on cessation of the time limit. The order was upheld by Deputy Collector (L.R) Appeal, Gandhinagar. As per the contention of the petitioner, the petitioner agrees upon restoring the original condition of the disputed land within 90 days and he shall be given an opportunity for it. The Executive Magistrate and Agricultural Land Tribunal has initiated proceedings for violation of land condition for the disputed land under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act. According to Section 84(C)(1) of the Tenancy Act, Executive Magistrate shall Page 29 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined have to carry investigation as mentioned in Section 84(B). According to Section 84(C)(2) of the Tenancy Act, if the Executive Magistrate reaches a decision that the transfer or acquisition of land is illegal, then the parties of such transfer or acquisition shall give a written undertaking that they shall return the rights and interests in the land, including the condition the land was in immediately before the transfer or acquisition within a period of three months from the date determined by the Executive Magistrate. Thus, it is compulsory for the Executive Magistrate to take a written undertaking from the parties regarding their awareness of this matter. In this case, upon examining the order of the Executive Magistrate and the Agricultural Tribunal, it does not appear that any such written undertaking was obtained by them from the parties. Furthermore, as per Section 63(AD) added to the Tenancy Act by Gujarat Act No. 28 of 2015, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 84(C), if the Executive Magistrate, on his own motion or upon an application of any person, has reason to believe that a transfer of land has been made in favor of a person who is not an agriculturist or in favor of any institution by breaching the provisions of clauses (a), (b), or (c) of sub- section (1) of Section 63, then the Executive Magistrate shall issue notice to such person or institution and, after giving an opportunity of hearing, it shall be decided whether the transfer of land is legal or not. If the Executive Magistrate reaches a decision that such transfer of land is not legal, then:
(1) The penalty of three times the amount of the current Jantri value (Govt. rate) of such land shall be imposed on the person or institution in whose favor the land was not legally transferred, and (2) The person or institution in whose favor the land was not legally transferred shall be ordered to re-establish the rights and interests in the land to the position it was in immediately before the transfer, within a period of one month. Regarding the disputed land, since both parties have also shown consent to bring the land back to its original state as per the rules and regulations, the revision application of the applicant is partially accepted Page 30 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined in these circumstances as follows below.
"O R D E R The Revision Application No. BA/3/2014 is hereby partially allowed.
The order dated 28/06/2009 passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal in Tenancy Case No. 101/2006, and the order dated 15/11/2013 passed by the Deputy Collector (L. R.), Appeals, Gandhinagar in Ganot/Appeal/SR/72/2010 and Revision/S.R./90/2010, are hereby quashed and set aside. Considering prevailing Government Resolution and the legal provisions of the Tenancy Act pertaining to the land in dispute, the matter is hereby remanded to the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Gandhinagar, to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with the rules, in view of the undertaking submitted by the Applicant to restore the land to its original status.
The injunction granted by this Tribunal stands vacated. Order pronounced today in an open Court.
The parties be informed of the orders."
11.3. It emerges from the record and it is not in dispute that the subject land bearing Survey No. 231 (Old Survey No. 145 paiki) admeasuring 8323 sq.mtrs. situated at Taluka:
Koteshwar, Dist.: Gandhinagar, originally belonged to Kachraji Chanduji, Leelaben d/o. Juthaji Chhaganji and Paliben wd/o. Juthaji Chhaganji. The respondent No. 6 purchased the subject land vide registered sale deeds dated 31.03.2000 bearing registration nos. 1595, 1596, and 1597. Pursuant thereto, the mutation entry was mutated being mutation entry No. 607 into the revenue records. In the year 2006, the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. initiated the proceedings under Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act Page 31 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined against respondent No. 6 herein, and by an order dated 28.06.2009, held the transfer to be in violation of Section-63 of the Tenancy Act, 1948, and that the subject land would vest with the respondent - State Government, subject to restoration to its original position, upon filing of an undertaking within 90 days of passing of the said order, the said order is duly produced at Annexure-J, pg.85-88 to the petition.
11.4. In the meantime, the respondent No.6 on 28.01.2008, entered into an unregistered agreement to sale with the petitioner's father, i.e. late Bhagwandas Rochiram Sadhwani, for the subject land and an unregistered Possession Agreement on 02.05.2008 also came to be executed.
11.5. On 18.03.2008, the petitioner's father issued a public notice inviting objections against the title of the subject land. In response thereto, third parties raised objections by replies dated 19.03.2008 and 06.04.2008 stating with respect to the pendency of civil litigation for the subject land, thereby preventing the title clearance certificate.
11.6. In the interregnum period, due to non-
compliance of the terms of the ATS dated 28.10.2008, the respondent No. 6 issued a notice for termination of ATS on 31.10.2010, which was replied to by the petitioner's father on 11.112010 and 22.11.2010.
Page 32 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined 11.7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2009, the respondent No. 6 preferred Ganot Appeal No. 72 of 2009 before the Deputy Collector, wherein, the order dated 28.06.209 was confirmed by the Deputy Collector vide order dated 15.11.2013 (Annexure-K).
11.8. The petitioner's father expired on 02.10.2023, bequeathing his rights over the subject land by virtue of a Will dated 06.10.2022 in favor of the petitioner. It is also important to note that, during the lifetime of the petitioner's father, no Suit was filed seeking specific performance of the agreement to sale dated 28.01.2008.
11.9. It is the case of respondent No. 6 that the agreement to sale in favour of the petitioner's father was terminated as back as in the year 2010. In view thereof, the agreement to sale in favour of the father of the petitioner was no more in force. Further, the petitioner's father was no more than an agreement- to-sell holder and consequently had no right over the subject land.
11.10. The petitioner herein relies on the terms and conditions of the agreement to sale, being condition Nos. 3, 5, 15, 17 and 20 to fortify his rights.
11.11. It is contended by the petitioner that the Page 33 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined respondent no.6 filed undertaking for meager amount of Rs.9,00,000/-, whereas, the agreement to sale is for more than Rs.2,00,00,000/- and the respondent no.6 siphoned the amount.
The aforesaid cannot be believed that the respondent no.6 would settle for a lesser amount and therefore, the impugned order passed by the GRT dated 01.09.2025 is arising out of collusion between the private respondents herein.
11.12. It is also the case of the petitioner that with respect to the other parcel of land, the respondent no.6 is contesting the same, wherein, the petition is pending before the High Court, however, in the facts of the present case, the respondent no.6 colluded with the original owner, arrived at an understanding, by filing an undertaking, which is nothing but collusive in nature. The petitioner herein paid an amount to the tune of Rs.2,36,00,000/- for the ATS arrived at between the parties.
This is nothing but a collusive order and therefore, once the order is stated to be a collusive order, it is open for the petitioner herein, who is an interested party to challenge the said order.
11.13. It is mainly the case of the petitioner that, there is a fair chance qua the respondent no.6 to succeed in the proceedings before the GRT, wherein, the said proceedings were Page 34 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined initiated by the Mamlatdar under Section 84(C) of the Act, are as such time barred and in view thereof, there is a fair chance for the respondent no.6 to succeed in such proceedings. In case of such a success of respondent no.6 on merits, the petitioner is to benefit in the suit.
11.14. In view of the aforesaid submissions, as such the petitioner herein not being a farmer, etc., are such contentions that can be tried before the Civil Court and not relevant at this stage.
12.1. To fortify the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed on the following decisions, which reads thus:
(I) In the decision reported in (2007) 7 SCC 482, wherein, it was a compromise decree under Order-23 Rule-3 of the CPC, wherein, it was held that, once the decree was by fraud or collusion, in the facts fo the said case, the same was challenged by a devotee/ a third party, was interfered with by the Hon'ble Apex Court, having held that, it was open for the petitioner in the said case to initiate appropriate proceedings for such decree;
(II) In (2003) 8 SCC 319 (para-35), in the facts of the said case, the review was preferred before the concerned Court to point out that the parties had suppressed the auction - sale as Page 35 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined also confirmation thereof. It was held that, the third party rights cannot be set at naught by consent order, (III) As reported in 1981 (1) SCC 80, in the facts of the said case, the plaintiff was a private limited company, a labour contractor, having entered into a sub contract for erecting two complete radiation type steam boilers as part of Thermal Power Station at Barauni, with the defendant Invest- Import, a Yugoslavia based company which in turn had entered into a contract with Bihar State Electricity Board for setting up the power station. The plaintiff claimed that it carried out some extra work, for which it is entitled to recover Rs.73,000/- from the respondent. There were other claims also made by the appellant, which was not satisfied by the respondent, with the result the appellant filed Suit No. 1359 of 1963 on the original side of the High Court at Calacutta, on 01.08.1963 to recover Rs.4,25,343.00/- from the respondent.
In the aforesaid facts, it was held that, once the receipt for the letter and cable are admitted or proved, coupled with the fact that even after the dispute arose and before the Suit was filed, in the correspondence that ensued between the parties, the respondent did not make any overt or covert reference to the arbitration agreement and utter failure of the respondent to reply to the letter and the cable controverting the averments made therein would unmistakably establish the truth Page 36 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined of the averments made in the letter.
The aforesaid decisions arose out of suit proceedings.
(IV). In 2025 SCC Online SC 2378, wherein, it was the case of unilateral termination of agreement, the appeal arising out of the suit proceedings. In the facts of this judgment, the appeal is preferred by the subsequent purchaser before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of High Court, where, the High Court allowed the two appeals filed by the vendees and thereby, set aside the judgment and decree of Trial Court in Original Suit while granting the relief of specific performance of Agreement to Sell, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a party cannot unilaterally terminate a non determinable agreement to sell, except where the contract itself is expressly determinable in nature under Section-14 of the Specific Relief Act.
In the facts of the present case, the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner herein is pending before the competent Civil Court, therefore, the aforesaid judgment relied would not be applicable in the facts of the present case, before the Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India.
(V). First Appeal No. 1629 of 2023, which was an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
Page 37 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined (VI). In (2010) 5 SCC 401 (para-12), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, an unregistered sale deed also has an evidentiary value and the same can be admitted in evidence.
The aforesaid judgments / position of law relied upon by the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioner herein are such that the same arise out of the suit proceedings.
As observed herein-above, the petitioner herein has instituted the Suit for specific performance, wherein, all the contentions can be raised by the petitioner herein. Further, upon hearing both the learned Senior Counsels, it also emerges that the respective parties claim possession and in view thereof, the same can be established before the competent Civil Court only where the Suit itself for seeking specific performance and ancillary prayers, is pending adjudication.
Relying on the aforesaid judgments, it is submitted that, in the facts of the present case, the parties have colluded and in view thereof, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the GRT to hear the petitioner and grant the petitioner herein an opportunity of hearing.
In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid is argument, from subjective point of view of the petitioner herein. It has to be tried before the competent Court, by leading Page 38 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined evidence.
13. In light of the aforesaid and considering the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the respective parties, the following emerge:
A. The foundation of petitioner's claim is based on an unregistered agreement to sale dated 28.01.2008 and an unregistered Possession Agreement dated 02.05.2008, duly produced at pages-45 and 65 respectively. There is no registered conveyance in favour of the petitioner. As noted in the affidavit- in-rejoinder filed by the petitioner herein at page-206, paragraph 6, as also the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, that unregistered agreement to sale holder has a right to file a specific performance suit being Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 2016 to enforce the ATS, the said Suit is pending.
A-1. It is a well-settled position of law that an unregistered agreement to sale even with possession does not confer any right or title in immovable property; however, it confers the right to sue by instituting a suit for specific performance, as has been preferred by the petitioner herein.
A-2. It is also well settled position of law that issues relating to the title of immovable properties fall exclusively within domain of Civil Courts and not revenue authorities. The Page 39 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined revenue entries are only for fiscal purposes and administrative in nature. The aforesaid is well settled principle of law which reads thus:
(i) In the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v/s. State of Haryana and Another reported in 2012 (1) SCC 656, relevant Para-18, 19 and 23 reads thus:
"18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immoveable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immoveable property can be transferred.
19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of sections 54 and 55 of TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under section 53A of TP Act). According to TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of TP Act enacts that sale of immoveable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter.
23. Therefore, a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court, in Asha M. Jain V/s. Canara Bank - 94 (2001) DLT 841, that the "concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a recognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed.
Page 40 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined Such decisions to the extent they recognize or accept SA/GPA/WILL transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law."
(ii) In the case of Shakeel Ahmed v/s. Syed Akhlaq Hussain reported in (2023) 20 SCC 655, relevant Paras-11 to 16 reads thus:
"11. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra) the fact remains that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney.
12. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
13. Law is well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document. Even the judgment of this Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) lays down the same proposition. Reference may also be made to the following judgments of this Court:
(i). Ameer Minhaj Vs. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and Others, (2018) 7 SCC 639
(ii). Balram Singh Vs. Kelo Devi [1] Page 41 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined
(iii). M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited Vs. Amit Chand Mitra & Anr. [2] [1] In Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022 [2] In SLP (C) No. 15774 of 2022
14. The embargo put on registration of documents would not override the statutory provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered documents with respect to immovable property. Once this is the settled position, the respondent could not have maintained the suit for possession and mesne profits against the appellant, who was admittedly in possession of the property in question whether as an owner or a licensee.
15. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) would be prospective is also misplaced. The requirement of compulsory registration and effect on non-registration emanates from the statutes, in particular the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act. The ratio in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) only approves the provisions in the two enactments. Earlier judgments of this Court have taken the same view.
16. In case the respondent wanted to evict the appellant treating him to be a licensee, he could have maintained a suit on behalf of the true owner or the landlord under specific instructions of Power of Attorney as landlord claiming to have been receiving rent from the appellant or as Attorney of the true owner to institute the suit on his behalf for eviction and possession. That being not the contents of the plaint, we are unable to agree with the reasoning given by the High Court in the impugned order."
(iii) In the case of Union of India and others v/s. Shatabadi Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. and others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 748, relevant Para-9 reads thus:
Page 42 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined "9. There is one other factor which is very significant, namely, that this Court having allowed the auction of the property in question ending confirmation of the same and that order having become final, now to allow the order made by the Appropriate Authority to be set aside and to permit the parties to work out in appropriate proceedings for restitution of the property would lead to serious anomalous position. When the transferor without demur allowed the property to be sold pursuant to the orders of this Court and that sale having taken place and this Court having affirmed the same and the proceedings by way of SLP filed under Art. 136 of the Constitution coming to an end as having become infructuous, the High Court could not have brushed aside that sale in the manner it has been done. The impact of such decision ought to have taken note of by the High Court. Indeed in K. Basavarajappa V/s. Tax Recovery Commissioner, Bangalore, (1996) 11 SCC 632, this Court has held that an agreement to sell creates no interest in the property and in the absence of a decree of specific performance of an agreement even though authorised by the general power of attorney holder of the original owner of the property had locus standi to move an application for setting aside the auction-sale on offer to deposit full tax dues. If we extend the said principle to the present facts, we find it hardly possible to come to the conclusion the High Court has arrived at. It is possible that the writ proceedings were still pending before the High Court but those writ proceedings were not at the instance of the owner of the subject property and the agreement holder did not have any interest other than that was indicated in the K. Basavara-jappa's case (supra). In that view of the matter, we, do not think the High Court should have ignored the effect of the same."
B. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner herein never approached the competent forum during the pendency of the tenancy proceedings and as submitted, upon the culmination of Page 43 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined the proceedings by the GRT by order dated 01.09.2025, the cause of action is stated to have arose for the petitioner to institute suit for specific performance before the competent Civil Court.
Further the petitioner cannot claim a better title than the respondent no.6, as the claim is merely based on an ATS.
C. In the opinion of this Court, all the contentions as referred to herein-above and the position of law as referred to herein-above, are such that the same are based on subjective point of view of the petition and based on speculation and surmises, mere averments alleging fraud or collusion would not tantamount to such act. The same is required to be proved before the competent Civil Court by leading evidence.
D. Coming to the dispute involved / impugned order before the GRT, it would be apposite to reproduce the Section 84(c)(2) of the Tenancy Act, which reads thus:
"SECTION 84C : Disposal of land, transfer or acquisition of which is invalid (2) If after holding such inquiry, the Mamlatdar comes to a conclusion that the transfer or acquisition of land to be invalid, he shall make an order declaring the transfer or acquisition to be invalid, unless the parties to such transfer or acquisition give an undertaking in writing that within a period of three months from such date as the Mamlatdar may fix, they shall restore the land along with the rights and interest therein to the position in which it was immediately before the transfer or acquisition, and the land is so restored within that period: Provided that Page 44 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined where the transfer of land was made by the landlord to the tenant of the land and the area of the land so transferred together with the area of other land, if any, cultivated personally by the tenant did not exceed the ceiling area, the Mamlatdar shall not declare such transfer to be invalid-
(i) if the amount received by the landlord as the price of the land is equal to or less than the reasonable price determine under section 63-A and the transferee pays to the State Government a penalty equal to Rs. 1 within such period not exceeding three months as the Mamlatdar may fix;
(ii) if the amount received by the landlord as the price of the land is in excess of the reasonable price determined under section 63A and the transferor as well as the transferee pays to the State Government each a penalty equal to one-tenth of the reasonable price within such period as may be fixed by the Mamlatdar.
E. The GRT accepted the Undertaking filed by the respondent nos.4 and 6, in accordance with Section 84(c)(2) of the Tenancy Act, which provides for restoration of the subject land to its original position. The Mamlatdar's order dated 28.06.2009 and the Deputy Collector's order dated 15.11.2013 also provide for the aforesaid, in accordance with Section 84(c) of the Tenancy Act as referred to herein-above, within 90 days. The respondent no.6 failed to comply with the said directions and in view thereof, the land in question came to be mutated in the name of the State Government vide Entry No. 839. Upon an undertaking filed by the private respondents, as referred to herein-above, the aforesaid orders are quashed and set aside by the GRT by the impugned order dated 01.09.2025.
Page 45 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined F. The said order has also attained finality, as the respondent - State having accepted the same.
G. At this stage it is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down in the case of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation v/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2024 (0) GUJHC 71564, wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench in para-1 to 3 and 45 to 53 observed thus:
"1. The instant intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, which is led by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) with the following relief:
"(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari declaring the order dated 12.05.2017 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.351/2016 as illegal and void and the same be quashed and set aside;
(B) By an appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restore the order of the Deputy Collector passed in Ganot Case No.14/2016 and other matters as per the order dated 16.08.2016; (C) By an appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that once the land is vested in government and subsequent changes had taken place whereby GIDC was allotted the land and an amount of Rs.1152.61 lakhs were deposited by the petitioner- GIDC in the year 2013, then in that case, question of any order being passed by the revenue authorities is beyond the jurisdiction and therefore all such orders be declared as illegal and void and the same be quashed and set aside;
(D) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay Page 46 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.351/2016 as well as the order passed in Ganot Case No.351/2016 as well as the order passed in Ganot Case No.43/2015 dated 04.12.2015 and 30.01.2016 alongwith and the status-quo position of the land be ordered to be retained;"
2. By means of prayer 17(AA), the amendment has been made in the following manner:
"17(AA)This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order Annexure-F1 dated 28.09.2015 passed in Revision Application No.253/2014 by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal as well as the orders passed in Ganot Case No.43/2015 by Mamlatdar & ALT dated 04.12.2015 as well as the further order passed in Ganot Case no.43/2015 by the Mamlatdar & ALT dated 30.01.2016 produced at Annexure-G&H respectively;"
3. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has noted that the land in question bearing Survey/Block No.64 situated at village Bhat, district Gandhingar having an area of 1-61-88 plus 0-39-46 totaling to 2-01-2-34 was restored to its original position under an order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the Mamlatdar in the proceedings under Section 84C of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (in short as 'the Tenancy Act'). The order dated 28.09.2015 passed in Revision Application No.253/2014 makes it clear that the Government Pleader had agreed that the interest of the agriculturist was required to be protected and since the parties were ready to restore the original position of the land, which was existing immediately prior to the transaction, the order was passed, accordingly, directing the Mamlatdar to do the needful, whereafter the order dated 30.01.2016 was passed. Subsequently, entries have also been mutated. With the restoration of the land in question to its original number having been completed, even the original owner had sold the land in question to other agriculturists, who are represented as the respondents herein.
Page 47 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined
45. Pursuant thereto, on the application led by the purchasers before the Mamlatdar on 10.11.2015, in Ganot Case No.43 of 2015, the Mamlatdar passed an order dated 04.12.2015 for restoration of the land in question as per the consent of the parties. There is no dispute about the fact that the land in question had been restored to its original owners. The purchasers who were contesting the matter before the Mamlatdar about the validity of the sale deed dated 07.05.1984 had not enjoyed the fruits of the purchase. The land in question was never in the possession of the purchasers and it was restored to the original owner under the order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Mamlatdar in Ganot Case No.43 of 2015.
46. Once the land in question had been restored with the consent of the parties, as per the undertaking given before the GRT, it cannot be said that the order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the Mamlatdar in holding the sale as invalid in the third round of litigation had attained finality. The proceedings commenced with the passing of the first order dated 09.07.1985 though continued for a long time, but at no stage of the proceedings, the right of the State in the land vested in it had been crystallized. As the parties were contesting the matter throughout and there has been application of mind on the claim of the parties and each time there had been a remand, it cannot be said that the parties have lost their right, title or interest in the land in question. As the litigation continued at different stages, there has been no crystallization of the rights of the rival parties and ultimately invoking the provisions of Section 84C(2), the GRT had taken a decision for restoration of the land in question which cannot be said to suffer from any error of law.
47. The challenge in the order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 04.12.2015 of restoration of the land in question to the original owner in appeal before the Deputy Collector was without any authority, inasmuch as, the GIDC had no right, title or interest in the land in question on the date of ling of the Appeal No.31/2016, and besides being Page 48 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined a prospective allottee, the allotment proposed in favour of the GIDC has never attained finality being subject to the pending proceedings before the revenue authorities, even in view of the stand taken by the State respondents to the writ petition in the a davit led in the instant appeal.
48. At the cost of repetition, as noted hereinbefore, though the proceedings were conducted for allotment of the land in question to the GIDC on the request made by the it, it had not been finalized on account of the tenancy proceedings initiated by the owner/purchaser and ultimately proposed allotment in favour of the GIDC had been cancelled vide communication dated 28.05.2018. On the date of passing of the judgment and order dated 21.01.2019 by the learned Single Judge, the GIDC had left with no right, title or interest in the land in question even as a prospective allottee. The order of cancellation of allotment passed by the Collector dated 28.05.2018 has left the GIDC with no right to assail the orders passed by the revenue authorities under the Tenancy Act.
49. With the above, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in holding that the GIDC had no locus to challenge the orders passed in the proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act, which has attained finality only with the restoration of the land in question to the original owners in Ganot Case No.43 of 2015 by order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Mamlatdar. The proceedings subsequent thereto initiated by the GIDC challenging the order of restoration are liable to be ignored, inasmuch as, there has been no transfer of right, title or interest in the land in question to the GIDC at any point of time.
50. As regards the State respondents, there has been no challenge to the order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Mamlatdar in restoration of the land in question. The Review Application No.30 of 2017 had been led seeking recall of the order dated 12.05.2017 passed by the GRT in the proceedings drawn by the GIDC, with the Appeal Page 49 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined No.31 of 2016 challenging the order dated 04.12.2015 of restoration of the land in question. The review/ recall of the orders dated 12.05.2017 was sought on various grounds including that there has been violation of the provisions of Section 63, 63AD of the Tenancy Act. However, the fact remains that the order passed by the revenue authorities in the tenancy proceedings initiated under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act culminating the said proceedings in restoration of the land in question to the original owners had not been challenged by the State authorities.
51. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the State was not party to the proceedings is found to be incorrect for the simple reason that the GRT in the order dated 28.09.2015 recorded the statement of the Government Pleader on behalf of the State Government that the restoration of the land in question to the original owner was, thus, for the protection of the agriculturist in the spirit of the Tenancy Act. The Tenancy Act is for the protection of the agriculturists and it is to be seen that the non- agriculturists may not grab agricultural land and that in his submission, appropriate order may be passed.
52. The fact remains that in essence of the provisions of Section 84C(2), option was given to the parties to restore the land in question to its original position as existed immediately prior to the transfer. The restoration of the land in question to its original position prior to the transfer has already been made and the original owner was put into the possession of the land in question pursuant to the final order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Mamlatdar in Ganot Case No.43 of 2015, which remained unchallenged by the State who may be said to be an aggrieved party with the vesting of the land in the State, which was otherwise, subject to the outcome of the proceedings, ultimately being concluded with the passing of the order dated 04.12.2015 in Ganot Case No.43 of 2015 which has attained finality insofar as the State is concerned, no challenge, therefore, could be entertained.
Page 50 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined
53. In view of the above discussion, no infirmity is found in the decision of the learned Single Judge. The appeal led by the GIDC is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Application also stands disposed of."
In the present case also, the fact remains that as provided under Section 84C(2), option was given to the parties to restore the land in question to its original position as existed immediately prior to the transfer.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner herein being an unregistered agreement to sale holder, though the same being not in dispute and an unregistered possession agreement, the remedy lies by preferring a Suit for specific performance, as has already been instituted by the petitioner herein and in absence of any fraud or collusion on the face of the record, no case is made out to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article-227 of the Constitution of India. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner herein as referred to herein-above, are such that the same arise out of the suit proceedings and are not applicable in the facts of the present case. In absence of any error much less any error of law, having been committed by the GRT, the petition fails and the same is required to be dismissed.
15.1. For the foregoing reasons, as referred to herein-above, no case is made out to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Page 51 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined Article- 227 of the Constitution of India and the present Petition accordingly stands dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
15.2. Since the main Petition is dismissed, the interim relief granted vide order 03.02.2026 stands vacated forthwith.
15.3. In light of the order passed in the main petition, Civil Application also stands disposed of.
Direct service is permitted.
16. After the order is passed, Mr. Dossani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner requests that the order be stayed for the period of two weeks. The said request is declined.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) Pradhyuman Page 52 of 52 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:10:19 IST 2026