Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Gangaram Nolaji Khatik Deceased ... on 18 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1915/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1915 of 2016
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
GANGARAM NOLAJI KHATIK DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS &
ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAY BAROT, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR MANAN A SHAH(5412) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 18/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned AGP Mr.Jay Barot appearing for the petitioners.
2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 20.10.2014 passed in Revision Application No. TEN/B/95/05 by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, whereby the said Revision Application has been dismissed.
3. The learned AGP, Mr.Jay Barot appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed on two grounds: first, that the suo motu revision proceedings have been taken up after a long period of time; and secondly, that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.602 of 2011 dated 08.08.2011, the respondent No.1 has the status of an agriculturist in the State of Rajasthan, and in view of the judgment of this Court, the petitioner is to be considered as an agriculturist for all purposes.
Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:52:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1915/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined
3. The learned AGP submits that the judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No.602 of 2011 dated 08.08.2011 relies upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Preethisingh Mukandsingh Shikh vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2012 (2) GLR 1608. He submits that the said Full Bench judgment has been challenged in the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of Civil Appeal No.2268-2298 of 2013 and the same is pending adjudication. He, therefore, submits that till the final outcome of the said Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondent is to be held as a non-agriculturist for the State of Gujarat, even if he is holding an agriculturist certificate from any other State.
3.1. The learned AGP further submits that the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has therefore erred in dismissing the Revision Petition. Further, the learned AGP submits that once the petitioner is held to be a non-agriculturist, the suo motu proceedings, even if undertaken after a period of 15 years, shall not be affected by the fact that such an action has to be taken within a reasonable time. He submits that on this issue also, the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has erred holding that the action taken after 15 years cannot be said to be within a reasonable time.
4. Per contra, the learned advocate, Mr.Manan Shah appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that the issue of delay in initiating suo motu proceedings is well settled by a catena of Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:52:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1915/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined decisions of this Court. He submits that in the present case, the land has been purchased by the respondent No.1, firstly, on 16.03.1988 by way of a registered sale-deed, for which the Mutation Entry No.2221 dated 02.09.1989 came to be effected and also came to be certified on 27.10.1989. That thereafter, the respondent No.1 has purchased another agricultural land by registered sale-deed dated 31.07.1996, for which Mutation Entry No.2621 dated 28.02.2000 came to be effected and duly certified on 31.03.2000. He submits that the said Mutation Entries came to be taken up in suo motu revision by issuing Notice dated 05.05.2003. He submits that therefore, the suo motu revision and proceedings under Section 84(C) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act came to be initiated after a period of 15 years on the ground that petitioner is not an agriculturalist of the State of Gujarat.
4.1. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further submits that the suo motu revision proceedings initiated are barred by limitation as the same are not within reasonable period of time. This Court, by various decisions, has held that in such cases, the reasonable time for initiating suo motu revision proceedings is one year. He, therefore, submits that the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has rightly held that the proceedings initiated are barred by limitation having not been initiated within a reasonable period of time.
Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:52:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1915/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined
4.2. The learned counsel has further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.602 of 2011, vide order dated 08.08.2011, has held that an agriculturalist even from another State cannot be denied the status of an agriculturalist. He submits that in the said case also, the purchaser was an agriculturalist from Rajasthan, and the suo motu revision proceedings were undertaken by the authorities after a period of 15 years. He, therefore, submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon the said judgment as the same is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
4.3. The learned counsel further submits that the Full Bench of this Court in case of Preethisingh Mukandsingh Shikh (supra) has settled the issue as to whether an agriculturalist from the other State can hold and own agricultural land in the State of Gujarat and the same has been held in affirmative, holding that such a person cannot be treated as non-agriculturist simply because he does not cultivate any agricultural land within the State of Gujarat. He submits that the State Government had challenged the said order of the Full Bench before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2268-2298 of 2013 The said Civil Appeal is pending adjudication, wherein the parties have been directed to maintain status quo.
4.4. The learned Counsel, however, submits that in the Special Leave Petition filed against the order dated 08.08.2011 in Letters Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:52:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1915/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined Patent Appeal No.602 of 2011, the Special Leave Petition has been dismissed, leaving the question of law open.
4.5. The learned counsel for the respondent lastly submits that the settled legal position by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Preethisingh Mukandsingh Shikh (supra) has been followed in a catena of decisions by the various Co-ordinate Benches of this Court. He, therefore, submits that both the issues arising before the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal have been rightly decided and no interference is called for in the Special Civil Application. He, therefore, submits that the present writ petition be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the documents on record and considered the submissions.
5.1. The facts emerging from the record in the present case are that the respondent No.1 is an agriculturalist from the State of Rajasthan. He had purchased agricultural land in respect of Block No.251 at village : Rayan, Taluka : Bardoli, District : Surat by way a registered sale-deed on 16.03.1988. Accordingly, Mutation Entry No.2221 dated 02.09.1989 came to be effected in his favour by order dated 27.10.1989. The said Mutation Entry came to be certified by the learned Mamlatdar. That thereafter, the respondent No.1 has purchased another agricultural land in Block No.242 by way of a registered sale-deed dated 31.07.1996. Mutation Entry No.2621 dated 28.02.2000 came to be effected in Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:52:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1915/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined favour of the respondent No.1, which came to be certified on 31.03.2000. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 is an agriculturalist from the State of Rajasthan. Further, the learned Mamlatdar and ALT, Bardoli has initiated the suo motu inquiry under Section 84 (C) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act by issuing Notice dated 05.05.2003 on the ground that the respondent No.1 is not an agriculturalist from the State of Gujarat. By order dated 04.09.2003, the learned Mamlatdar and ALT, Bardoli has held that since the respondent No.1 was not holding any agricultural land in the State of Gujarat, there was a breach of Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, and accordingly, the said lands came to be vested with the State Government under Section 84(C) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
5.2. Admittedly, in the present case, the suo motu inquiry proceedings have been initiated in the year 2003 in respect of the Revenue Entries, which have been effected in the year 1989 and 2000. The said proceedings have been initiated after a period of almost 14 years in the case of Mutation Entry duly certified in the year 1989 and after a period of 3 years in respect of Mutation Entry No.2621 certified on 31.03.2000. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that suo motu inquiry revision proceedings in respect of breach of conditions under the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act have to be initiated within a reasonable period of time, i.e., within 1 year from the date of such transactions. In the present case, the learned Gujarat Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:52:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1915/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined Revenue Tribunal has rightly held that the suo motu proceedings initiated by the learned Mamlatdar and ALT, Bardoli are beyond the reasonable period of time.
5.3. Further, in the present case, the respondent No.1 is an agriculturalist from Rajasthan. He has purchased agricultural land at Bardoli, Surat, Gujarat. The learned Mamlatdar and ALT has held that since he is not cultivating any land in the State of Gujarat, he is a non-agriculturist and therefore, there is a breach of Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and the land is vested with the Government. In a similar fact situation, the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.602/2011 has set aside such suo motu proceedings on the ground that it has been initiated after an unreasonable period of time. Further, the Full Bench of this Court in Preethisingh Mukandsingh Shikh (supra) has held as under :
"5. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in these matters is whether a person who does not own agricultural land within the State of Gujarat can be treated to be a non-agriculturist within the meaning of the Act simply because he does not cultivate any agricultural land within the State of Gujarat and on that ground, the purchase of any agricultural land by such a person will be hit by the provisions contained in section 89 of the Act.
Xxx xxx xxx xxx
12. Therefore, in order to bring a case out of the rigour of section 89 of the Act, the transfer must be made to an agriculturist and even if he is an agriculturist, such agriculturist must not hold land more than three family holdings as indicated therein within the State of Gujarat.
13. If we go to the definition of 'agriculturist' it simply means a person who cultivates land personally and there is no restriction that he must be a person who cultivates land personally at least some land in the State of Gujarat.
Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:52:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1915/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined
14. We further find that according to Gujarat Land ceiling Act, 1960 which governs all agricultural lands in the State of Gujarat, there is a similar definition of 'agriculturist' without any restriction of personal cultivation of land only in the State of Gujarat, and according to section
6 of the said Ceiling Act, which has an overriding effect over all law for the time being in force, no person should be entitled to hold whether as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant land in excess of the ceiling area and while determining such ceiling area, any land held by an agriculturist in any other part of the India outside the State, not exceeding the maximum area of land, which such person is entitled to hold in such other part of India under any law, if any, relating to ceiling on land, used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes, shall be excluded from the ceiling area in excess of which a person is not entitled to hold land under this section.
15. The above provision of the Ceiling Act enacted in the year 1960 makes it abundantly clear that whatever was the intention of the legislature in the past, from the enactment of the above provision, it has made its intention abundantly clear that the land held by an agriculturist in other State should also be taken into consideration as an agricultural land held by such agriculturist while determining the ceiling limit of land in Gujarat. In other words, according to the said legislation, for the purpose of better management of agricultural lands in the State of Gujarat, no agriculturist in this State will be permitted to hold any small fraction of agricultural land if the total agricultural land held by such agriculturist exceeds the ceiling limit, be any part of such land is situated in the State of Gujarat or in any other States, as according to the legislature of this State, an agriculturist is incapable of giving due care and proper superintendence over his agricultural land in excess of such limit.
16. We, therefore, find substance in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that under the terms of the Act, the term 'agriculturist' is a 'qualification' and that can be attained by any person in India who cultivates agricultural land personally as indicated in the Act if such land is situated in any part of India. In the absence of specific provisions in the Act indicating its clear intention, it is preposterous to suggest that the legislature has recognized his agricultural land held as agriculturist in other States but has not recognized him as agriculturist even though he is recognized as such by a different State.
17. We, thus, find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that it was never the intention of the Gujarat legislature to prohibit the recognized agriculturist of any other State to hold any land in the State of Gujarat unless he was holding such land in this State and if that was the intention, in that event, the legislature would not Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:52:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1915/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined have included his holding as such agriculturist in other States for the purpose of calculating the ceiling area.
18. Moreover, in the entire Act, there is no indication that a person can acquire any agricultural land in Gujarat only if he is already cultivating some of the lands in Gujarat. The aforesaid idea is absurd as would appear from the fact that even under the provisions of the Act, a person can become an 'agriculturist' even by way of succession as heir of an agriculturist. Therefore, if a cultivator in Gujarat marries a person who is not an agriculturist in a different State, on the death of the former, the latter will definitely acquire interest in the land in Gujarat.
19. We are also not impressed by the submissions of the learned Advocate General that as the State has no sufficient machinery to verify the genuineness of the certificates given by the other States as regards the status of a person as agriculturist in those States, the purpose of the Act will be frustrated. In our opinion, when the State Government is prepared to accept the certificate granted by other States as regards the quantum of agricultural land held by an agriculturist in other States as genuine for the purpose of ceiling, there is no reason why such certificate as regards their status as agriculturist cannot be relied upon. Xxx xxx xxx xxx
22. We fail to appreciate how the said principles can be of any help to the State in this case. Mr. Trivedi tried to rather impress upon us that we should read in the statute "in the State of Gujarat" in the definition of 'agriculturist" and "to cultivate personally". The aforesaid decision rather goes against his contention. On the other hand, if we take into consideration the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act, the intention of the legislature was apparent that it recognized the land held by an agriculturist in other State. Therefore, the above decision is of no avail to the State.
Xxx xxx xxx xxx
27. In the case before us, we have already pointed out that if we take into consideration the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act enacted by the legislature, it is clear that its intention was to recognize the agriculturists of the other State as an agriculturist and also to take into consideration the land belonging to such agriculturist in the other State. It was never the intention of the legislature only to take into consideration the land of such agriculturist situated in a different state but not to consider him as an agriculturist in this State. Therefore, the above decision also does not help Mr. Trivedi in any way.
Xxx xxx xxx xxx
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:52:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1915/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
34. So far as the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Tukaram Savalaram Panasare v. Narayan Balkrishna Dolas, reported in AIR 1952 Bom. 54, we are of the view that the facts of the said case are quite different from the one involved in the present case. In that case, it was held by Chief Justice Chagla, that Legislature was only interested in those people who were cultivating land within its territorial jurisdiction and to whom relief was to be given because they were indebted by acting as such agriculturists. In the case before us also, Gujarat State Legislature was concerned with the person who intends to hold agricultural land and object of the Act is to see that only agriculturist by profession whether within the State of Gujarat or in any part of India is holding the land in the State of Gujarat. Thus, the said decision cannot be of any help to the State respondent. We are quite conscious that the above view of Chagla, C.J. has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Tatoba Bhau Savagave v. V.D. Deshpande, reported in AIR 2001 SC 4029, referred to by Mr. Trivedi.
Xxx xxx xxx xxx
39. We, therefore, find substance in the contention of the appellants that a person who does not own agricultural land within the State of Gujarat at the time of purchase cannot be treated to be a non- agriculturist within the meaning of the Act simply because he does not cultivate any agricultural land within the State of Gujarat and on that ground alone, the purchase of any agricultural land by such a person will not be hit by the provisions contained in section 89 of the Act.
40. We, consequently, set aside the decision of the District Collector, Kutch who issued instructions to the concerned Mamlatdar to freeze the 'khedut khatas' [agricultural accounts] of the appellants until further instructions on the ground that the appellants are agriculturists belonging to other States. We also quash the circular No. TNC/1073/58184/J of the Revenue Department of the Government of Gujarat dated 4th April 1973 wherein it was indicated that any sale of land made to any non-agriculturists in Gujarat on the strength of his status as agriculturist in any other State outside Gujarat would attract the provisions contained in section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and section 54 of the Saurashtra Tenancy and Garkhed Settlement Ordinance and section 89 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land [Vidarba Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958 on the strength of certificates about their status as agriculturists in other States."
6. The said decision of the Full Bench of this Court came to be challenged by the petitioners herein by way Civil Appeal Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:52:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1915/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined Nos.2268-2298 of 2013 and the same is pending adjudication. However, the impugned judgment therein is not stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, the law as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court is of binding nature.
6.1. Further, the legal position as settled by the Full Bench has been followed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in various judgments and orders.
7. In view of the settled legal position in respect of agriculturalist from another State holding agricultural land in the State of Gujarat as well as the action initiated by the learned Mamlatdar and ALT by way of suo motu proceedings being beyond the reasonable period of time, no infirmity can be attached to the findings rendered by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the impugned order. The Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) KUMAR ALOK Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:52:21 IST 2025