C/LPA/653/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 653 of 2017 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2017 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 653 of 2017 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 654 of 2017 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2017 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 654 of 2017 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 655 of 2017 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2017 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 655 of 2017 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 656 of 2017 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2017 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 656 of 2017 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 657 of 2017 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2017 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 657 of 2017 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 658 of 2017 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2017 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 658 of 2017 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY ================================================================ Approved for Reporting Yes No ================================================================ DEVARAJBHAI VALJIBHAI GADA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS HEIRS & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ================================================================ Appearance: MR JITENDRA M PATEL(620) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4 C/LPA/653/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 MR. SANJAY UDHWANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 17/03/2026 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) 1. The above-noted set of intra-court appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the Writ Court and, as such, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The judgment and order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the Writ Court in deciding the set of writ petitions was pertaining to the challenge to the common order dated 1-10.11.1999 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department (in short as “the SSRD”), as also the order dated 12.06.1995 passed by the respondent no. 5 - Collector in RTS Proceedings Case No. 1/1994, Case Nos. 27/1994 to Case No. 31/1994. 3. By means of the order impugned dated 12.06.1995, the Collector, in a suo moto proceedings, had issued show cause C/LPA/653/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 notice to all the parties and, after hearing them, had directed for cancellation of all entries in the name of Devarajbhai Valajibhai Gada, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, with respect to the lands which were the subject matter of transfer vide Will dated 23.05.1985 and also the registered sale deeds dated 10.09.1991 and further directed for initiation of the proceedings under Section 84C of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (in short as the “Tenancy Act, 1948”). 4. On a further challenge before the SSRD, the order passed by the Collector has been affirmed with the findings that:- “Thus looking to the entry Nos. 1389, 2650, 2651, 2649, 1670 and 1658 mutated with regard to the sell transactions happened in the cases of Moje Kumsariya and Moje Balda when the applicants of this case have purchased the agricultural lands prior thereto becoming Agricultural Acount Holder through Will purchased this lands. Therefore, when the applicants have purchased the said lands on that day as per the definition of “Farmer” given in the Tenanct Act were not the farmer. First becoming farmer under the guise of Will thereafter on that basis purchased the other lands. The non-farmer canot purchase the agricultural land such proviso has been made in Section 63 of Tenancy Act and whoever non-farmer wants to purchase the agricultural land than such person shall have to obtain permission under Sectio 63 of Tenancy C/LPA/653/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 Act and Rule 36 (F). In this case no such permission has been obtained by the applicants. The submission of the Advocate for the applicant that the law of 8 km. has been repealed by the Government and barred by the limitation of time, and Will is not a transfer, such submission is not accepatble because the law of 8 Km. repealed by the Government of Gujarat vide Act No. 4/95 dated 06.04.1995 whereas in the present case the sell transactions are prior to that hence no benefit of such law can be granted. And the transactions which are illegal since its inception those are nulity in view of law. In such cases there is no bar of time limit or reasonable period. As resolved in Spl. C. A. No. 267/77 Patel Ada Megha Versus Government of Gujarat case the impugned order may taken in review and rejected at any point of time. And as resolved by the Honourable Supreme Court Honourable Justice Shri K. M. Sing and Ratnavel Pandiyan in Appeal No. 780/76, dated 18.09.1990 the property which is legally not available such property may transfer thorugh Will is not considered as proper. It is necessary to obtain permission as per the provisions of concerned law. Such meaning included therein. The Honourable Gujarat Government has formed the Tenancy Act in favour of farmer Breaching the provisions of Tenancy Act under the guise of Will obtaining status of farmer such activities of purchasing lands elsewhere cannot be encouraged. In this case the applicants are non-farmer who have obtained status of farmer under the guise of Will purchased the other lands. And they have not produced any proofrs of having been farmer or not obtained necessary permission which are to be obtained as per the law prior to purchase of land. Therefoer, for breach of Section 63 of Tennacy Act canceling all the entries the Collector, Valsad has taken decision to carry out procedure under Section 84(C). In this case it has been clearly proved from the evidence bsed on record that in this case the sell transactions happenede between farmer and non-farmer. Therfore, it is clearly proved that there is breach of Section 63 of Tenancy Act. Therefore, it is not advisable to accept the arguments of C/LPA/653/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 learned Advocate of the applicants. The order of the Collector, Valsad is self explanatory. Looking to it as a whole in the above circumstances, the decision taken by the Collector, Valsad vide her above Order No. CH.RTS.Review Case 1/94, 27/94, 28/94, 29/94, 30/94 and 31/94, dated 12.06.1995 is propoer and legal hence no suitable reason found to make interference in it. Therefore, the following order is hereby passed. ORDER The above numbers 6(six) Revision Applications of the applicants are hereby rejected on the above stated reasons. And the impugned order of Collector, Valsad bearing No. CH.RTS Review Case 1/94, 27/94, 28/94, 29/94, 30/94 and 31/94 dated 12.06.1995 is hereby uphold.” 5. The Writ Court in the judgment impugned, categorically records that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner namely Devarajbhai Valjibhai Gada, had got the land bearing Survey No. 49/6 admeasuring 8 gunthas through the Will dated 23.05.1985 from its original owner, namely, Bhagubhai Kanjibhai Patel. The subsequent purchases by way of sale deeds were made by Devarajbhai in the year 1991 after execution of the Will in his favour. The SSRD, in the order impugned, recorded that Devarajbhai got the status of an agriculturist by virtue of an illegal transfer made by the Will dated 06.04.1995, and the subsequent purchases C/LPA/653/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 were made on the premise of getting the said status of an agriculturist based on the Will. The stand taken by the petitioner that the Will was not a transfer and cannot be said to be in breach of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act, 1948 was upturned by the SSRD while upholding the order passed by the Collector for cancellation of the revenue entries. 6. Before the Writ Court, it was initially argued that the issue as to whether Section 63 of the Tenancy Act debars an agriculturist from parting with the agricultural land to a non- agriculturist through ‘Will’ was pending before the Supreme Court, and therefore, the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendrabhai Baldevbhai Shah Vs. Baijiben Kabhaibhai Patanvadia and Ors., reported in 2009(2) GLR 1784 could not be said to have attained finality. 7. The Writ Court further recorded that the transactions recorded in the six entries-in-question have not been disputed by the petitioners. It was not disputed that Survey No.49/6 was bequeathed by the deceased Bhagubhai Kanjibhai to the deceased Devarajbhai Valjibhai by executing the Will dated 23.05.1985. It was also noted that there is C/LPA/653/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 nothing on record to suggest that the said Devarajbhai was an agriculturist when the land bearing Survey No.49/6 came to be transferred in his name pursuant to the Will executed by Bhagubhai Kanjibhai. The Entry No.1389 was recorded on 21.02.1991 after the death of the Bhagubhai when Will came into light. The subsequent entries were with regard to the purchase of the lands made by Devarajbhai from other persons. 8. The Collector had taken all the entries in a suo motu revision on the ground that the transfer made by the deceased Bhagubhai in favour of the Devarajbhai, who was a non-agriculturist, through Will was in violation of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and other subsequent transfers would also be in violation of the said provisions for the same reason. The order passed by the Collector for cancellation of all the entries and the direction for initiation of the proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act, thus, has been upheld by the Writ Court, with the observations in the paragraph no. ‘11’ as under:- “11. In the instant case, vide the impugned order the Collector has set aside the entries made in the revenue record, which were prima facie found to be in C/LPA/653/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 violation of the Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and therefore, directed the Mamlatdar and ALT to initiate proceedings under Section 84C of the said Act. The Collector himself has not exercised the powers under Section 84C of the said Act as sought to be submitted by Mr.Mehta. In the inquiry before the Mamlatdar under Section 84C, the petitioners would have the opportunity of hearing and to produce the material. It is needless to say that the revenue entries are made only for the fiscal purpose and they themselves do not create any right, title or interest in favour of any party.” 9. In so far as the issue as to whether the Will by an agriculturist in favour of a non-agriculturist would be hit by Section 63 of the Tenancy Act, 1948 has been adjudicated by the Apex Court in the judgment and order dated 15.06.2020 in case of Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia V/s. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2020 4 GLR 2800. 10. Having noted the above, we do not find any error in the order of the Writ Court in upholding the order passed by the Collector that the entry made on 21.02.2021 (on the basis of Will dated 23.05.1985) and all other the subsequent entries based on the registered sale deed of the year 1991 are hit by Section 63 of the Tenancy Act, for the transfers being in favour of a non-agriculturist without permission. No interference, as such, is called for in the order of the writ C/LPA/653/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 Court. 11. However, in view of the observation made in paragraph no. ‘11’ of the judgment of the writ Court, we may reiterate that the Mamlatdar shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 84 C of the Tenancy Act in compliance of the order dated 12.06.1995 passed by the Collector. But in the inquiry before the Mamlatdar under Section 84 C, the petitioner shall be at liberty to produce their documentary evidence and will be entitled to have due opportunity of hearing. 12. We may also reiterate the clarifications given by the writ Court in the judgment impugned that revenue entries are made only for fiscal purposes and they themselves do not create any right, title or interest in favour of any party. 13. The liberty, therefore, rests with the Mamlatdar to proceed in accordance with the law, under Section 84 C of the Tenancy Act, independently, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the Writ Court or in this order hereinabove. It is clarified that the petitioners shall also be at liberty to lead evidence and contest the C/LPA/653/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 proceedings, independently. 14. With the above, the present set of appeals are disposed of. Interim relief, if any, stands discharged. 15. In view of dismissal of all the appeals, connected Civil Applications also stand disposed of. (SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) VARSHA DESAI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: VARSHABEN VAGHAJIBHAI DESAI(HC01393), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 24/03/2026 18:01:44