Gujarat High Court
Chhaganbhai Geriyabhai Gamit vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 23 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1104/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1104 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1105 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1106 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1107 of 2017
==========================================================
CHHAGANBHAI GERIYABHAI GAMIT
Versus
GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DIGANT M POPAT(5385) for the Respondent(s) No.
4,5,6,7,8,9
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4.1,4.2,4.3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 23/03/2026
COMMON ORDER
1. As the issue involved in all the petitions is
identical and based upon the same set of facts and
materials, they are being disposed of by this common
order and the facts of Special Civil Application
No.1104 of 2017 are taken in to consideration.
2. By way preferring present petition under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has sought for the following main
relief:
Page 1 of 15
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:34:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1104/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
“A) THIS HON’BLE COURT may be pleased to issue
writ of certiorari, or any other writ or order
or directions and be further pleased to quash
and set aside the impugned orders at Annexure-
A/1 to A/3 respectively and be further pleased
to allow the said Ganot/70-B/Case no.2/2005 by
declaring and holding that, the petitioner is a
tenant of subjected land bearing Block No.157
admeasuring 3-84-09 H-ARE-Sq. Mtrs. situated at
Mouje: Kareli, Taluka: Palsana, District Surat.”
2.1. The petitioner is a tenant and continuously
cultivating agricultural land bearing Block No.157,
Survey No.151 and 153/2, admeasuring 3-84-09 H-Are-
Sq. Mtrs. situated at Mouje Village Kareli, Taluka:
Palsana, District Surat (it shall hereinafter be
referred to as the ‘subject land’) since last more
than 30 years without any interference and
interruption. That, one of the relatives of
respondent No.4 herein had come to India in October,
2004 and enticed the petitioner to handover the
original revenue receipts and other revenue records
pertaining to the subject land to him. As the value
of the subject land is increasing at a skyrocket
speed, with the help of anti-social elements,
respondent No.4 wanted to get the possession of the
land from the petitioner, which constrained the
petitioner to file tenancy case before the Mamlatdar
& ALT, Palsana under the provisions of Section 70(b)
of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (it
shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘Act’ for
short). However, the said application has been
dismissed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Palsana by way ofPage 2 of 15
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:34:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/1104/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
order dated 30.10.2009.
2.2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
said order, petitioner herein has preferred appeals
before the Deputy Collector, Bardoli. However, the
said appeals have also been dismissed by the Deputy
Collector vide common order dated 16.08.2010.
2.3. The said order of the Deputy Collector has been
assailed before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (it
shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘GRT’ for
short) by way of preferring revision application.
Along with the revision application, a separate
application for injunction has also been preferred.
The said application seeking injunction has been
allowed by the GRT and notice came to be issued to
the respondents herein. Being aggrieved by the said
ex-parte order, the private respondents herein have
made submissions before the GRT to vacate the said
ex-parte injunction. However, the said request of the
private respondents has been rejected by the GRT vide
order dated 05.01.2012. Being aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the said order, respondents
preferred writ petitions being Special Civil
Application No.4652 and allied matters before this
Court, which came to be disposed of by the this Court
vide order dated 15.10.2013. While disposing of the
writ petitions, the Court directed the GRT to decide
the main revision application on or before 30.04.2014
and directed the parties to maintain status quo
Page 3 of 15
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:34:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1104/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
prevalent on the date 14.09.2010. Thereafter, the GRT
proceeded with hearing of the revision application
and ultimately dismissed the revision vide order
dated 02.05.2014. Hence, present petition is
preferred.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. N. V. Gandhi for the
petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for
respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
4. Learned advocate Mr. N. V. Gandhi for the
petitioner submits that the order passed by the
Mamlatdar & ALT, Palsana, which is subsequently
confirmed by the Deputy Collector, Bardoli in appeals
and GRT in the revision application, is unjust and
illegal and passed without considering the documents
and materials available on record in true spirit and
proper perspective. Therefore, the orders impugned
are required to be quashed and set aside. Learned
advocate Mr. Gandhi has vehemently submitted that the
documents placed on record before the concerned
revenue authorities had not been considered in true
spirit and proper perspective and by discarding the
important materials/documents and by giving undue
weightage to non-important documents, the concerned
revenue authorities have passed the orders, which
ultimately led them to jump to a wrong conclusion.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi further submits that
it is the specific case of the petitioner that since
Page 4 of 15
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:34:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1104/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
last more than 30 years, the subject land is
cultivated by the petitioner as a deemed tenant and
the original landlords are residing outside the
country and on one fine day, the relative of
respondent No.4 herein i.e. one Manubhai Rambhai came
to India in the year 2004 and requested the
petitioner to handover to him the original revenue
receipts and other record pertaining to the subject
land and therefore all those materials have been
handed over to the said person and thereafter the
respondents had tried to dispossess the petitioner by
getting help of anti-social elements, which
ultimately constrained the petitioner to initiate the
proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Act before the
Mamlatdar concerned. He submits that the said
application came to be dismissed by the Mamlatdar and
therefore petitioner herein preferred four appeals
before the Deputy Collector, which also came to be
dismissed by the Deputy Collector. The petitioner,
therefore, preferred revision before the GRT and
along with the said revision, a separate application
for injunction has also been preferred. At the time
of admission of the revision, the GRT had also
granted status quo qua the subject land and also
issued notice to the respondents herein. The said
order of granting status quo by the GRT has been
assailed by the private respondents before this Court
by way of preferring a petitioner, which came to be
disposed of with a direction to the GRT to decide the
main revision within stipulated time. Thereafter, the
Page 5 of 15
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:34:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1104/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
GRT passed the impugned order whereby the revision
preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed.
Hence, petitioner has preferred instant petition.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submits that in fact
a specific contention is raised by the respondents
herein that they are the owners of the subject land
and as they are residing outside the country, they
executed one power of attorney in favour of one of
the relatives of the respondents for taking care of
the subject land and the said power of attorney had
appointed petitioner as a Manager of the firm and
they used to pay Rs.4200/- as salary to the
petitioner for managing the affairs of the subject
land. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submits that in
fact respondents have miserably failed to lead any
evidence in support of their contention that they are
paying Rs.4200/- to the petitioner as salary. Despite
that, the authority concerned has held that
petitioner herein was working as a Manager of the
firm. He submits that for the purpose of proving his
case, the petitioner has examined number of witnesses
and produced ample materials, however, those
evidences/materials have been discarded by the
Mamlatdar concerned and passed the order against the
petitioner.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi further submits that
it is the specific case of the petitioner that except
the cultivation of sugarcane rest of the crops have
Page 6 of 15
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:34:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1104/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
been cultivated by the present petitioner but due to
ignorance of the provisions of the revenue laws those
particular facts have not been disclosed before the
revenue talati and in turn those particular facts
have not been reflected in the abstract of village
form No.7/12 by the revenue talati and by putting
reliance upon the entries mutated in the revenue
record, the Mamlatdar & ALT jumped to the conclusion
that petitioner has failed to prove by way of leading
cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to suggest
that he is the tenant and ultimately dismissed the
application preferred by the petitioner. He submits
that event the Deputy Collector has also dismissed
the appeals filed by the petitioner by assigning same
reasons and reiterating the findings given by the
Mamlatdar in the operative part of the order and same
view is also adopted by the GRT in the proceedings of
revision.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi further submits that
during the interregnum period, civil suit is also
filed by the petitioner before the competent Civil
Court and as he was suffering from chronic eye
problem and therefore he could not be able to file
present petition within the prescribed period of
limitation. He submits that as on today the
possession of the subject land is with the petitioner
and therefore the orders impugned are required to be
quashed and set aside by declaring and holding that
the petitioner is a tenant of subject land.
Page 7 of 15
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:34:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1104/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
9. The notice issued by this Court has already been
served to the private respondents, however, none
remained present when the matter is taken up for
hearing.
10. Learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the respondent –
State has objected present petitions with vehemence
and submitted that as per the statutory provisions of
law, the Mamlatdar is the competent authority to
entertain an application preferred under Section
70(b) of the Act. He has referred the definitions of
‘deemed tenant’, ‘protected tenant’ and ‘permanent
tenant’. He submits that an application is preferred
by the petitioner that he may be declared as a tenant
qua the subject land and it is well settled that
petitioner has to prove the fact that he is a tenant
and he is cultivating the subject land as a
‘protected tenant’ or ‘permanent tenant’ since last
many years by leading cogent, convincing and reliable
evidence and if petitioner failed to prove that fact,
in that event, the application preferred by the
petitioner is required to be dismissed. He submits
that petitioner has failed to produce any documents
before the revenue authority that he is the tenant of
the subject land and cultivating the subject land
since last many years in the capacity of a tenant and
therefore his application has been dismissed. He has
read the operative part of the order and submitted
that since beginning it is the stand of the
respondents that number of fruit-bearing trees are
Page 8 of 15
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:34:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1104/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
lying in the subject land and the owners –
respondents are earning profit from the product of
various fruits. He submits that while considering the
merits of the case, the Mamlatdar & ALT concerned has
placed heavy reliance on the provisions of Section
43-A(1)(b) of the Act, and observed that where fruit-
bearing trees such as Chikoo and Mango exist on the
property and Sugarcane Crops are cultivated or
harvested, the provisions of the Act would not be
applicable for such category of land. He submits
that, based on the evidence available on record, so
far as another parcel of land, for which also the
petitioner is claiming tenancy right, is concerned,
fruit-bearing trees such as Chikoo, Mango along with
standing Sugarcane Crops are lying in the said land,
while so far as the land in question is concerned,
the owners have already harvested Sugarcane Crops and
therefore the subject land would not fall under the
categories of the property where the provisions of
the Act would be applicable. He further submits that
for the purpose of claiming the right of tenancy, one
has to come with the specific case that under certain
conditions, he entered into contract with the
landlord. However, in the instant case, petitioner
has not produced any such document to show and
suggest that on the basis of execution of said deed,
he entered into an agreement to carry out
agricultural activities on the subject land as a
tenant and therefore in absence of any such document,
the authority concerned is not in a position to
Page 9 of 15
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:34:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1104/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
believe that petitioner is the tenant. Therefore, the
authority concerned has rightly rejected the
application preferred by the petitioner under Section
70(b) of the Act. He further submits that petitioner
has also produced certain documents before the
Mamlatdar & ALT but after scrutiny, it has come to
the notice of the authority concerned that those
documents are created by the petitioner only after
the submission of application under Section 70(b)
with a sole intent to misguide the authority
concerned and with a view to get favourable order. It
is also found out from the record that some of the
documents have been created by the petitioner
himself.
11. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi further submits that to
prove their case, respondents herein have produced
ample evidence before the authority concerned,
whereas, the petitioner has come out with a case that
one of the relatives of the respondents had taken all
the revenue record pertaining to the subject land
from the petitioner. In short, petitioner has failed
to produce any document before the authority
concerned showing that he is in possession and
cultivating the subject land since last many years.
He further submits that during the course of
recording the evidence, it is the case of the
petitioner that he is cultivating the subject land
through various agricultural equipments, however, all
those equipments are also belonging to the
Page 10 of 15
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:34:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1104/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
respondents herein. He submits that the documents
produced before the authority concerned irresistibly
go on to show that petitioner has miserably failed to
lead any evidence before the authority concerned
which corroborates his stand that he is in possession
and/or occupation and cultivating the subject land as
a tenant since last many years. Thus, the Mamlatdar &
ALT has rightly discarded the evidence of the
petitioner and dismissed the application preferred by
the petitioner under Section 70(b) of the Act and
while upholding the said view adopted by the
Mamlatdar & ALT, the Deputy Collector as well as GRT
have also not committed any error either of law
and/or facts apparent on the face of the record,
which warrants any interference at the hands of this
Hon’ble Court. He, therefore, submits that all the
petitions being devoid of merits, are required to be
dismissed.
12. Having heard learned advocates appearing for
both the parties and having considered the materials
placed on record, it transpires that the petitioner
herein had preferred one application under Section
70(b) of the Act before the Mamlatdar & ALT, Palsana,
inter alia, alleging that he is a tenant and
continuously cultivating the subject land since last
more than 30 years without any interference and
interruption. It is also alleged that one of the
relatives of the respondents had come to India and
taken the original revenue receipts and other revenue
Page 11 of 15
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:34:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1104/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
records pertaining to the subject land from the
petitioner. It is also alleged that since the value
of the subject land is increasing at a skyrocket
speed, with the help of anti-social elements,
respondent No.4 wanted to get the possession of the
land from the petitioner, and therefore petitioner
has preferred an application under Section 70(b)
before the Mamlatdar & ALT, Palsana. However, after
appreciating and considering the evidence and
materials, the said application came to be rejected
by the Mamlatdar concerned. Being aggrieved by the
said order, the petitioner herein had preferred
appeal before the Deputy Collector, Bardoli. However,
the said appeal also came to be dismissed by the
Deputy Collector. The petitioner, therefore,
assailed the orders passed by the revenue authorities
concerned by way of preferring revision before the
GRT. Along with the revision, a separate application
for injunction also came to be preferred. At the time
of admitting the revision, an ex-parte stay has been
granted by the GRT. Thereafter, the respondents
herein have appeared before the GRT and requested to
vacate the ex-parte interim relief granted by the
GRT. However, the said request has not been acceded
to by the GRT and therefore a petition came to be
preferred before this Court. The Coordinate Bench of
this Court disposed of the said petition with a
direction to the GRT to decide the revision within
some time bound scheduled. Thereafter the revision
application preferred by the petitioner before the
Page 12 of 15
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:34:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1104/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
GRT has been dismissed by the GRT. Therefore,
petitioner preferred instant petitions assailing the
orders passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Palsana, Deputy
Collector, Bardoli as well as GRT.
13. It is pertinent to note that the authority
concerned has specifically held that considering the
kind of the subject land, the provisions of the Act
would not be applicable to such a land. Moreover, on
scrutiny of the documents produced by the petitioner,
it has come to the notice of the authority concerned
that some of the documents have been created by the
petitioner himself only after the submission of the
application under Section 70(b) of the Act with a
view to get favourable order from the authority
concerned and petitioner has failed to prove that he
is cultivating the subject land since last many years
as a tenant. On the contrary, respondents have
produced ample evidence on record to show and suggest
that petitioner is not a tenant but in fact he is an
employee of the firm and he has been appointed as a
Manager by the landlord and they used to pay
Rs.4,200/- to the petitioner as a salary. It is also
found out from the record that petitioner has not
produced any document under the pretext that all the
documents relating to land in question have been
handed over to one of the relatives of original
landlord. The said story put forward by the
petitioner is not required to be believed and rightly
not believed by the authority concerned. It is also
Page 13 of 15
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:34:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1104/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
pertinent to note that the petitioner was not even in
a position to give correct information about the
yield of crops alleged to have been harvested by him
through the subject land.
14. Now, I would like to refer to Section 43-A(1)(b)
of the Act reads thus:
“43-A Some of the provisions not to apply to
leaser of land obtained by industrial or
commercial undertakings, certain co-operative
societies or for cultivations of sugarcane or
fruits or flowers.- (1) the provisions of
Section 4B, 8, 9, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 10A, 14, 16,
17, 17A, 17B, 18, 27, 31 TO 31D (both
inclusive) 32 to 32R (both inclusive), 43, 63,
63A and 64 shall not apply to –
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) leases of land granted to any bodies or
persons other than those mentioned in clause
(a) for the cultivation of sugarcane or the
growing of fruits or flowers or for the
breeding of livestock;
xxx xxx xxx”
15. I have also gone through the provisions of the
Act as well as reasoning recorded by the concerned
revenue authorities while dismissing the proceedings
initiated at the instance of the petitioner and I am
in complete agreement with the reasoning recorded by
the authority concerned and I do not see any reason
to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact
recorded by the revenue authorities concerned. The
Page 14 of 15
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:34:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1104/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
petitions being devoid of merits, are required to be
dismissed.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the
petitions stand dismissed. Notice discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
Page 15 of 15
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:34:12 IST 2026