Gujarat High Court
L/H Of Dungarbhai Dhulchandbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 1 December, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5653/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5653 of
2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1282 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1282 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2060 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 1282 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2060 of 2025
==========================================================
L/H OF DUNGARBHAI DHULCHANDBHAI AGRAWAL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA S PATEL(12087) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,3
MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
respondents
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. The delay of 121 days caused in filling the main Letters Patent Appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay is condoned. The Civil Application is disposed of. The Registry is directed to give the regular number to the Letters Patent Appeal, forthwith. Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:56:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5653/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record, pertinent is to note that as per the admitted case of the petitioners, the proceedings under Section 84 C of the Gujarat Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act, 1948) had been initiated against them and ultimately concluded with the order dated 31.07.2008. There was no challenge to the order passed under Section 84 C of the Tenancy Act at the relevant point of time. With the proceedings under Section 84 C having concluded to its logical end, by virtue of sub-section 3 of Section 84 C of the Tenancy Act, 1948, the land in question shall be deemed to vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances lawfully substituting thereon on the date of such vesting. The State is free to dispose off the such land in the manner provided in sub-section (4) of Section 84 C.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that even after conclusion of proceedings under Section 84 C and vesting of the land in question in favour of the State Government, the petitioner remained in possession of the land in question throughout and being the bonafide vendee of the same from Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:56:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5653/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined the lawful owners namely heirs and legal representatives of the original tenant, his possession over the land in question may, is of an authorized occupant, and as such, he cannot be evicted by allotment of the land in question to a third person. Even otherwise, the allotment proceedings suffers from patent illegality and cannot be sustained at all. The contention is that the learned Single Judge was required to look to the correctness of the proceedings conducted for allotment of the land in question to the private respondents therein.
4. Taking note of these contentions, pertinent is to note that the assertion made in the writ petition about the petitioner being a tenant of the land in question, having been entered into the land in question with the consent of the original owner are misleading, inasmuch as, the transaction, if any, in favour of the petitioner has been found to be unlawful and has been declared invalid in the proceedings under Section 84 C of the Tenancy Act conducted by the competent authority. The reference to the Transfer of the Property Act or the provisions contained therein, in the writ petition are also misleading. All the assertions made in the writ petition about the petitioners being in occupation of the land in question as a Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:56:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5653/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined tenant legally, cannot be appreciated.
5. Besides the above assertions made in the writ petition, there is an admission, as noted hereinabove, in the paragraph no. 5.5 of the writ petition itself that the ALT and Mamlatdar initiated the proceedings against the predecessor in interest of the petitioners for breach of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act, 1948 and the land in question came to be vested with the State Government under Section 84 C of the Tenancy Act, 1948 holding the transfer invalid. The remedies of appeal and revision availed by the transferee namely the predecessor in interest of the petitioners had been decided against them leading to the final order dated 31.07.2008 by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. No infirmity can be attached to the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) VARSHA DESAI Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:56:34 IST 2025