Gujarat High Court
Khodabhai Lakhabhai Chamar Since Decd. … vs Valabhai Trikambhai Through Heirs on 2 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 26/02/2026
Pronounced On : 02/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14134 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KHODABHAI LAKHABHAI CHAMAR SINCE DECD. THROUGH HEIRS &
ORS.
Versus
VALABHAI TRIKAMBHAI THROUGH HEIRS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VM DHOTRE(1089) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7
MR. MAYUR V DHOTARE(7019) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7
MR TRILOK J PATEL(658) for the Respondent(s) No.
1.1,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,2.6,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By way of filing present petition under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioners have prayed for the following main
relief:
Page 1 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
“a) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction
in the nature of Certiorari quashing and
setting aside the Judgment and Order dated
13.06.2011 rendered in Revision Application
No.TEN/BA/387/96 and passed by the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad at ANNEXURE-I
by declaring and holding that the land of
Block No.539 & 570 which came to be
purchased by Lakha Trikam from one Kashiben
Wd/o Popatlal in a proceeding U/s. 32-G of
the said Act by paying the necessary
consideration can in no way be treated as
the land of Joint and common tenancy along
with the respondents and the land of Survey
Nos.9/7, 48/3 and 65/2 and Block No. 539 &
570 are two separate and distinct lands of
Village Thori-Mubarak.”
2. The facts of the case of the petitioners can be
summarized in a nutshell as under:
2.1. That land bearing Block No. 570, admeasuring
Acre 12 & 29 Guntha and land bearing Block No. 539,
admeasuring Acre 10 & 17 Guntha of village Thori
Mubarak, Taluka: Viramgam, District Ahmedabad was
running in the name of Ribhabhai Trikambhai and
Malabhai Trikambhai. The Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam
issued notice to the concerned parties under Section
84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
(it shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘Act’ for
short). Thereafter, the proceedings came to be
initiated by the Mamlatdar & ALT, wherein, the
statements of the father of the petitioner i.e.
Khodabhai Lakhabhai as well as one Bhanabhai MalabhaiPage 2 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
i.e. the heir of Malabhai Trikambhai have been
recorded and after considering their statements as
well other materials and/or documents including the
Panchnama, wherein it is specifically stated that the
possession of the land in question (which has come in
the share of Ribhabhai Trikambhai and Malabhai
Trikambhai) is with the Vitthalbhai Ribhabhai (heir
of Ribhabhai Trikambhai), Bhanabhai Malabhai (heir of
Malabhai Trikambhai) as well as Bhikhaibhai
Vitthalbhai (heir of Vitthalbhai Ribhabhai) since
last so many years, the notice issued under Section
84C of the Act has been withdrawn by the Mamlatdar &
ALT, Viramgam vide order dated 20.03.1991 by holding
that considering the statement/reply of Khodabhai
i.e. the heir of tenant Lakhabhai Trikambhai, the
breach of the conditions of the Act has not been
proved. The said order has been taken into revision
under Section 76(A) of the Act by the Deputy
Collector, Ahmedabad upon an application preferred by
Gandabhai Valabhai and Bhanabhai Malabhai (respondent
Nos. 1 and 3 herein). After appreciating and
considering the materials available on record, the
Deputy Collector concerned has jumped to the
conclusion that the brothers of Lakha Trikam i.e.
Ribha Trikam and Mala Trikam as well as Ganda Vala
are also having equal share in the land in question
and therefore after affording an opportunity of
hearing and considering and appreciating the
materials/documents produced by them, fresh decisionPage 3 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
is required to be taken by the Mamlatdar & ALT. The
revision, therefore, came to be disposed of by the
concerned Deputy Collector by remanding the matter
back to the Mamlatdar & ALT to decide it afresh, vide
order dated 31.03.1992.
2.2. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam
initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the
Act and after considering and appreciating the
materials and documents produced by the respective
parties, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam passed an
order dated 09.07.1992, whereby, the names of
Gandabhai Valabhai – heir of deceased Vala Trikam –
heir of deceased Trikam Rupa, Vitthalbhai Ribhabhai –
heir of deceased Ribha Trikam and Bhanabhai Malabhai
– heir of deceased Malabhai Trikambhai have been
inserted in the revenue record as the co-occupiers of
the land in question as their equal share in the
property has been proved. Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid order, the petitioner i.e. Khodabhai
Lakhabhai Chamar has preferred an appeal under
Section 74 of the Act before the Deputy Collector,
Ahmedabad. The said appeal came to be partly allowed
by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad vide order dated
22.03.1993, whereby, the matter is remanded back to
the Mamlatdar & ALT for taking fresh decision after
verifying original record of heirship entry No.1129,
mutated in the revenue record on 29.10.1948, whereby,
the names of Ribha Trikam, Mala Trikam, Lakha Trikam
Page 4 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
and Gandabhai Valabhai have been mutated in the
revenue record.
2.3. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam
passed order dated 2-3/07/1993, which was assailed
before the Deputy Collector by preferring revision
under Section 76A of the Act before the Deputy
Collector, Ahmedabad. However, as the aforesaid order
is a non-speaking and cryptic one, the Deputy
Collector quashed and set aside both the orders dated
09.07.1992 as well as 2-3/07/1993 passed by the
Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam and remanded the matter
back to the Mamlatdar & ALT to decide the matter
afresh.
2.4. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam
has initiated the proceedings and after considering
and appreciating the materials/documents, passed an
order dated 04.08.1995, inter alia, observing and
holding that it is proved that all the persons, whose
names were ordered to be inserted in the revenue
record vide order dated 09.07.1992 by the Mamlatdar &
ALT, Viramgam, are having equal share in the land in
question. The Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam has also
withdrawn the notice issued under Section 84C of the
Act. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the
petitioner herein preferred appeal under Section 74
of the Act before the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad.
However, the said appeal also came to be dismissed by
Page 5 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
the Deputy Collector vide order dated 20.02.1996.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
preferred revision before the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal. However, the said revision also came to be
dismissed by the GRT vide order dated 13.06.2011.
Hence, present petition is preferred.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Dhotre appearing for the
petitioners submits that a notice under Section 84C
of the Act has been issued by the Mamlatdar & ALT,
Ahmedabad. However, after considering the materials
and documents available on record, the Mamlatdar &
ALT withdrew the said notice in view of the fact that
the father of the petitioner is the tenant of the
land in question. However, the said order has been
taken into revision by the Deputy Collector and
ultimately the said revision came to be disposed of
by the Deputy Collector by remanding the matter back
to the Mamlatdar & ALT to decide it afresh in view of
the fact that the respondents herein are also having
equal share in the land in question and they are the
co-occupiers. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar has initiated
the proceedings and passed the order dated 09.07.1992
in Tenancy Case No.291 of 1992, whereby, the names of
Gandabhai Valabhai – heir of deceased Vala Trikam –
heir of deceased Trikam Rupa, Vitthalbhai Ribhabhai –
heir of deceased Ribha Trikam and Bhanabhai Malabhai
– heir of deceased Malabhai Trikambhai have been
inserted in the revenue record as the co-occupiers of
Page 6 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
the land in question as the fact of their equal share
in the subject land has been proved. Learned advocate
Mr. Dhotre for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have assailed the said order before the
Deputy Collector by preferring an appeal. However,
the Deputy Collector has partly allowed the said
appeal and remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar
& ALT to verify the original record of entry No.1129,
mutated on 29.10.1948, whereby, the names of other
brothers of Lakhabhai Trikambhai alleged to have been
mutated in the revenue record. Learned advocate Mr.
Dhotre submits that thrice the matter has been
remanded to the Mamlatdar concerned to decide the
issue. However, lastly, the Mamlatdar & ALT has
passed the impugned order dated 04.08.1995, whereby,
it is held that respondents are also having equal
share in the subject land and they are the co-
occupiers of the subject land. He submits that the
said order of the Mamlatdar & ALT has been carried in
appeal before the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad.
However, the said appeal also came to be dismissed by
the Deputy Collector. The petitioners, therefore,
assailed the said order of the Deputy Collector
before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by preferring
Revision Application No.TEN/BA/387/96. The said
revision also came to be rejected by the GRT. Hence,
present petition is preferred by the petitioners.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Dhotre has read the
Page 7 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
provisions of Section 84C of the Act and submitted
that the authorities below have committed grave error
in expanding the scope and ambit of Section 84C of
the Act. He submits that Section 84C of the Act
empowers the Mamlatdar to initiate inquiries into
invalid land transactions, such as sales to non-
agriculturists. He submits that the said provision
nowhere contemplates about holding of an enquiry for
determining the share of any party in the land which
is the subject matter under such provision. He
submits that it is pertinent to note that the notice
issued under Section 84C of the Act has been
withdrawn by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam by holding
that for the subject land there is no breach and
Lakhabhai Trikambhai and his heir Khodabhai Lakhabhai
i.e. the deceased petitioner were the Tenant. Thus,
when the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam has jumped to the
conclusion that there is no breach of statutory
provisions of the Act, there is no further scope for
the concerned Revenue Authorities to travel beyond
the provisions of the Statute itself. He submits that
the revenue authorities are not empowered to hold
that the other brothers of Lakha Trikam are also
having equal share in the subject land and the said
issue is required to be decided by the competent
Civil Court. Thus, the revenue authorities have
exceeded their jurisdiction while passing the
impugned orders and holding that other brothers of
Lakha Trikam are also having equal share in the
Page 8 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
subject land and therefore their names are required
to be inserted in the revenue record as co-occupiers,
without there being any order from the competent
Civil Court holding that the other brothers of Lakha
Trikam are also having equal share in the subject
land.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Dhotre further submits that
the suo motu powers of revision has to be exercised
within a reasonable time and in catena of decisions
of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, it is
held that the authority concerned has to initiate the
suo motu proceedings within a period of three years
in case if the time limit is not prescribed in the
statute itself. However, in the instant case,
admittedly, the notice under Section 84C of the Act
has been issued on 19.06.1990 for alleged
transfer/acquisition which has taken place on
01.08.1956 i.e. almost after 33 years. He, therefore,
submits that only on this ground, the orders impugned
are required to be quashed and set aside. In support
of his submission, learned advocate Mr. Dhotre has
put reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of The State of Gujarat v Patil Raghav
Natha & Ors, reported in (1969) 2 SCC 187 and in the
case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai
Ibrahim, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 71 as well as
decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Shambhuram Videshiram Morya v. State of Gujarat
Page 9 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
through Secretary (Appeals) & Ors., reported in 2012
(1) GLR 665.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Dhotre further submits that
if the Hon’ble Court would make cursory glance upon
the contents of notice issued under Section 84C of
the Act, in that event, it would have been found out
that the land bearing Block No.539 was never a part
of notice. Despite that, the revenue authorities
concerned had initiated suo motu proceedings qua
Block No.539 and passed the impugned orders. The said
view adopted by the revenue authorities is not legal
and valid and the same is beyond the scope of notice
issued under Section 84C of the Act. He, therefore,
submits that the impugned orders are required to be
quashed and set aside. He further submits that once
the notice issued under Section 84C of the Act has
been withdrawn by the concerned revenue authority, it
is not open for the revenue authority to go into the
issue of share of other brothers of Lakha Trikam in
the subject land.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Dhotre further submits that
the subject land is purchased by Lakha Trikam –
father of Khodabhai (deceased petitioner) from one
Kashiben, widow of Popatlal, in the proceedings
initiated under Section 32G of the Act by paying
necessary amount. He submits that in the said
proceedings, notices came to be issued to Ribha
Page 10 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Trikam and his brother Lakha Trikam. However, said
Ribha Trikam has not raised any objection and
participated in the proceedings and therefore
certificate of purchase under Section 32M of the Act
has been issued in favour of Lakha Trikam. He submits
that certificate of purchase is the conclusive
evidence and pursuant to issuance of certificate of
purchase under Section 32M of the Act, name of Lakha
Trikam has been mutated in the revenue record and
none of the brothers of Lakha Trikam have raised any
objection and/or made any challenge against the
issuance of certificate of purchase in the name of
Lakha Trikam or the entry, whereby the name of Lakha
Trikam has been mutated in the revenue record qua the
subject land, before the competent forum and
therefore in the proceedings initiated under Section
84C of the Act, the concerned revenue authorities
have no jurisdiction to hold that other brothers of
Lakha Trikam have also equal share in the subject
land. He submits that in fact before the revenue
authorities he has already produced all those
documents which would crystallize the position of
fact that the price fixed by the revenue authority
concerned has already been deposited by Lakha Trikam
through different vouchers before the competent
authority and thereafter the certificate of purchase
has been issued under Section 32M of the Act. He
submits that in fact the said proceedings have been
initiated by the concerned revenue authority by
Page 11 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
issuing notices under Section 32G of the Act to Lakha
Trikam and his brother Ribha Trikam, however, Ribha
Trikam had not participated in the said proceedings
and therefore those proceedings have been continued
against Lakha Trikam only. He submits that land
bearing Survey Nos. 9/7, 48/3 and 65/2 originally
belongs to Trikam Rupa and after the sad demise of
said Trikam Rupa, names of Ribha Trikam, Mala Trikam,
Lakha Trikam and Ganda Vala have been mutated in the
revenue record vide entry No.1129 on 29.10.1948,
whereas, land bearing Survey Nos. 176/1, 175/5 and
6/2 was originally owned by one Ramjibhai Popatlal
and after his death on 03.03.1960, name of Kashiben
Popatlal has been mutated in the revenue record vide
entry No.1460 and during the lifespan of Ramjibhai
Popatlal, the said parcels of land have been
cultivated by Lakha Trikam as a tenant. He submits
that thus only the land bearing Survey Nos. 9/7, 48/3
and 65/2 stood in the name of Trikam Rupa, wherein,
other brothers of Lakha Trikam have their relevant
share and not in the land bearing Survey Nos. 176/1,
175/5 and 6/2, which Lakha Trikam had purchased from
Kashiben Popatlal through certificate of purchase
issued under Section 32M of the Act. He further
submits that Block No.539 consists of Survey Nos.9/7
and 175/5, whereas, Block No.570 consists of Survey
No.176/1 and 6/2. He further submits that if the
Hon’ble Court would make cursory glance upon entry
No.1129, in that event, it would have been found out
Page 12 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
that only Survey No.9/7 is shown in the said entry
based upon which the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad has
remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar & ALT at
the first in point of time by believing that other
brothers of Lakha Trikam have also equal share in the
subject land. He, therefore, submits that the other
brothers of Lakha Trikam are having their respective
shares only in 2 gunthas of land bearing Survey
No.9/7 and the said fact is found out from the order
dated 2-3/07/1993 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT.
Learned advocate Mr. Dhotre submits that thus barring
Survey No.9/7, the survey numbers which are shown in
entry No.1129 are not part of the subject land i.e.
land bearing Block Nos. 539 and 570, despite that,
the revenue authorities concerned have passed the
impugned orders holding that other brothers of Lakha
Trikam have also equal share in the subject land. He,
therefore, submits that in view of the aforesaid
overall facts of the present case, petition is
required to be allowed by quashing and setting aside
the orders impugned.
8. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Trilok Patel
appearing for the private respondents has objected
present petition with vehemence and submitted that
the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam had initiated
proceedings under Section 84C of the Act by issuing
notice to the petitioner herein. However, the said
notice has been withdrawn by the Mamlatdar & ALT,
Page 13 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Viramgam vide order dated 20.03.1991 by observing
that considering the reply of Khodabhai – heir of
Lakhabhai Trikambhai, who is the tenant of land
bearing Block No.570 of village Thori Mubarak, there
is no breach of condition of provisions of the Act
and therefore notice issued under Section 84C is
ordered to be withdrawn. He submits that vide said
order, the Mamlatdar has considered Lakha Trikam and
his heirs to be the teant and therefore being
aggrieved by the said decision, private respondents
herein have preferred an appeal before the Deputy
Collector, Ahmedabad, inter alia, contending that the
subject land i.e. land bearing Block Nos. 539 and 570
is of the joint ownership of their forefathers and
they are jointly cultivating the subject land since
decades and since then they are the co-occupiers and
Khodabhai Lakhabhai and Jethabhai Lakhabhai are
trying to deprive them from their lawful rights in
the subject land and therefore their names also
refused to be inserted in the revenue record as co-
occupiers. He submits that after appreciating and
considering the overall materials and documents, the
Deputy Collector has remanded the matter back to the
Mamlatdar & ALT to decide it afresh by holding that
the other brothers of Lakha Trikam are also having
equal share in the subject land. He submits that the
said fact is fortified from the operative part of the
order dated 31.03.1992 passed by the Deputy
Collector, Ahmedabad. He submits that the said order
Page 14 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
of the Deputy Collector is not challenged by the
petitioners herein before the higher forum and it
attains finality. Thus, the observations made by the
Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad that including Lakha
Trikam, his other brothers viz. Ribha Trikam, Mala
Trikam and Ganda Vala are also having equal share in
the subject land has attained finality and the said
observations made by the Deputy Collector is not
challenged by the petitioners herein. He submits that
only on this ground the petition filed by the
petitioners is required to be quashed and set aside.
9. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that
all the revenue authorities have recorded concurrent
findings of fact that land bearing Block No.539 (old
Survey No.175/5) and land bearing Block No.570 (old
Survey No.176/1) were originally belonging to
Trikambhai Rupabhai (grand father of petitioners and
private respondents herein) and after his sad demise,
all the family members acquired equal share and they
are cultivating the portion of their respective share
in the subject land. Thus, the subject land is
jointly cultivated by the petitioners as well as
private respondents since last many decades but as
the private respondents being illiterate and not
acquainted with the legal procedure, all the family
members have decided to handover the administration
of the family to Lakha Trikam and therefore his name
alone was running in the revenue record as a tenant
Page 15 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
and certificate of purchase under Section 32M was
also issued in his name. He has drawn the attention
of this Court to entry No.1129 posted on 29.10.1948
and submitted that vide said entry, after the death
of Trikam Rupa, being the Karta of the joint family
name of Ribha Trikam has been mutated in the revenue
record and in the said entry it is specifically
observed that Ribha Trikam, Mala Trikam, Lakha Trikam
as well as Ganda Vala are the legal heirs of Trikam
Rupa and since they are residing in a joint family
and Ribha Trikam being the administrator of the
family, his name is required to be mutated as Karta
of the joint family and therefore being the Karta of
the joint family, name of Ribha Trikam is mutated.
10. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has also drawn the
attention of this Court to entry No.1370 mutated in
the revenue record on 31.03.1959 and submitted that
if the Hon’ble Court would make cursory glance upon
the contents of the said entry, in that event it
would have been found out that along with Lakha
Trikam name of Vibha (sic Ribha) Trikam is also shown
as an ordinary tenant and both Lakha Trikam and Ribha
Trikam were jointly cultivating the subject land. He
submits that the petitioners have failed to produce
any document based on which the name of Ribha Trikam
has been removed from the revenue record as an
ordinary tenant.
Page 16 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
11. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that
there was joint family and all the brothers were
jointly cultivating and possessing the subject land
and therefore merely on the ground that the
proceedings under Section 32G of the Act has been
conducted and certificate of purchase under Section
32M of the Act has been issued in favour of Lakha
Trikam only, it does not mean that Lakha Trikam has
got exclusive tenancy right by depriving the rights
of other members of a joint family/tenants. He
further submits that certificate of purchase under
Section 32M of the Act is issued in the name of Karta
of the family. The said certificate was issued in
favour of Lakha Trikam for and on behalf of the joint
family. He further submits that it is true that the
issuance of certificate of purchase under Section 32M
of the Act is conclusive but it is conclusive qua the
landlord only and it cannot be said to be conclusive
qua the coparcener or joint tenants who were not
parties to the proceedings under Section 32G of the
Act and such certificate of purchase would put an end
to any controversy between the landlord and the
tenant. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has put reliance
upon the decision of this Court in the case of
Shankerbhai Kanjibhai v. Dagadubhai Govindbhai,
reported in 1991(2) GLH 487 and submitted that the
facts of the present case are squarely covered by the
aforesaid decision, wherein, the Court observed and
held that if the certificate of purchase is issued
Page 17 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
under Section 32M of the Act in the name of Karta of
Joint Family or elderly person which is a tenant, it
would not mean that such a person was the sole tenant
of the land. He submits that when the certificate of
purchase is issued to the Karta or elderly member of
the family for and on behalf of the family, other
members of the family can also claim the benefit of
such a certificate. He, therefore, submits that all
the authorities concerned have rightly passed the
impugned orders which are not required to be
interfered with by this Court.
12. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has put reliance upon
the Government Resolutions dated 15.03.1996 and
30.10.2002 and submitted that the facts of the
present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid
GRs. He submits that in fact in the G.R dated
15.03.1996, the Collectors of the State are directed
to mutate the names of all the remaining
brothers/sisters in the revenue record qua the land
of new tenure, land given on Santhani and land where
the provisions of the Act are applicable, upon the
death of the elder brother whose name is mutated in
the revenue record qua those categories of land.
Thus, after the death of Lakha Trikam, in view of the
aforesaid GR dated 15.03.1996, names of other
brothers of said Lakha Trikam are required to be
mutated in the revenue record and therefore the
authorities concerned have rightly passed the
Page 18 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
impugned orders, whereby, the names of other brothers
of Lakha Trikam have been mutated in the revenue
record as co-occupiers. He submits that the reason
for issuance of the aforesaid G.R. is that generally
the name of elder son of the original allottee or
Karta of the joint family is mutated in the revenue
record and the names of other heirs of the original
allottee are not mutated and after the death of elder
son or Karta of the joint family, the names of his
legal heirs are mutated in the revenue record,
depriving the interest of other legal heirs of the
original allottee and therefore with a sole intent to
safeguard the interest of other heirs of the original
allottee, by way of aforesaid GR, the Collectors of
the State are directed to mutate the names of
remaining brothers/sisters (the heirs of original
allottee) of the elder son or Karta of the joint
family. Thus, keeping in mind the aforesaid GR as
well as other documents and/or materials coupled with
the fact that the respondents herein and petitioners
are co-occupiers and they are jointly cultivating the
subject land, the revenue authorities concerned have
rightly passed the orders inserting the names of
other brothers of Lakha Trikam as co-occupiers.
13. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that
the Deputy Collector, while remanding the matter to
the Mamlatdar & ALT, specifically observed that Entry
No. 1370 indicates that both Lakha Trikam and Ribha
Page 19 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Trikam were joint tenants. However, the proceedings
under Section 32G of the Act had been initiated
against Lakha Trikam only, resulting in the omission
of the names of other rightful persons from the
revenue record. It was further noted that Ribha
Trikam was also a tenant of the subject land and that
Lakha Trikam, Ribha Trikam, Mala Trikam, and Ganda
Vala were the members of a joint family. Despite
this, the Mamlatdar & ALT had declared only Lakha
Trikam as the tenant. The Deputy Collector emphasized
that the Mamlatdar & ALT ought to have passed the
order after hearing all the legal heirs of deceased
Trikambhai Rupabhai, as they were in possession of
and jointly cultivating the subject land in
accordance with their respective shares. Pursuant to
these observations, the Mamlatdar & ALT initiated
remand proceedings and passed an order dated
09.07.1992. In the said order, the Mamlatdar & ALT
has, after considering the materials and documents as
well as statements/depositions of adjacent land
owners, specifically held that the legal heirs of
Trikam Rupa viz. Khoda Vala, Ribha Trikam, Mala
Trikam and their heirs viz. Ganda Vala, Vitthal Ribha
and Bhanabhai Malabhai are in possession and
cultivating the land as per their respective share in
the subject land since last many years. It is also
observed in the operative part of the order that
despite an opportunity of leading the evidence was
given to the petitioners to prove that Khodabhai
Page 20 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Lakhabhai alone is cultivating the subject land, he
has failed to produce any document to that effect. It
is also observed by the Mamlatdar & ALT in the said
order that police complaints have also been filed by
both the parties against each other for entering in
to the subject land. Thus, after thoughtful
consideration, the Mamlatdar & ALT has held that
other legal heirs of Trikam Rupa i.e. Ribha Trikam,
Mala Trikam and Vala Trikam are also having equal
share in the subject land and therefore their names
are required to be mutated in the revenue record as
co-occupier and accordingly ordered to insert their
names as the co-occupier. He submits that the said
view adopted by the Mamlatdar concerned has been
upheld by all the revenue authorities. He, therefore,
submits that when the revenue authorities concerned
have specifically held that other heirs of Trikam
Rupa are also having equal share in the subject land
and only on account of Karta of the HUF, name of
Lakha Trikam has been mutated in the revenue record.
14. In reply to the contention raised by learned
advocate Mr. Dhotre for the petitioners that the
Revenue Authority is not empowered to decide the
share of the persons in the proceedings initiated
under Section 84C of the Act and the said issue is
required to be decided by the Civil Court concerned,
learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that the concerned
revenue authorities have not exceeded their
Page 21 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
jurisdiction and they have not decided the ownership
and/or share of the respondents but after considering
the depositions of neighbours as well as other
materials and documents, the Mamlatdar & ALT held
that the other brothers of Lakha Trikam are also
cultivating the subject land and earlier the names of
Ribha Trikam and Lakha Trikam were mutated in the
revenue record as the tenants and the proceedings
under Section 32G of the Act have been initiated
against Lakha Trikam and Ribha Trikam and therefore
the names of other brothers of Lakha Trikam are
required to be inserted as co-occupiers and
accordingly their names have been inserted. Thus, as
per the decision of this Court in the case of
Shankerbhai Kanjibhai (supra), since the Joint Family
can be the tenant and since one of the members of the
Joint Family claims sole and exclusively tenancy
excluding other coparceners or joint tenants, when
just claim of joint tenants is sought to be denied by
the holder of the certificate of purchase, question
as contemplated u/s 70(b) of the Act would arise. He
has referred Section 70(b) of the Act and submits
that the said provision of the Act empowers the
Mamlatdar to exclusively decide whether a person is a
tenant or not. Thus, the revenue authorities have not
exceeded their jurisdiction while passing the
impugned orders. He further submits that all the
revenue authorities have recorded concurrent findings
of fact, wherein, the scope of interference of this
Page 22 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Court is very limited. He, therefore, submits that
looking to the aforesaid overall facts of the present
case, petition is required to be dismissed.
15. Learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi has also objected
present petition with vehemence and submitted that
considering the checkered history of the matter,
thrice the matter has been remanded by the Deputy
Collector to the Mamlatdar to consider the issue
afresh. He submits that all the authorities have
concurrently held that other persons are also in
possession and cultivating the subject land since
last many years and therefore their names are also
required to be mutated in the revenue record as co-
occupiers. He submits that the Mamlatdar concerned
has got exclusive right to decide the issue of
tenancy. He further submits that it is true that the
certificate of purchase under Section 32M of the Act
is conclusive proof. However, he has fairly conceded
that the certificate of purchase issued under Section
32M of the Act is conclusive qua landlord only and
not qua other coparceners/joint family members, who
are in possession and cultivating the subject land
since last many decades. He has also verified the
original Record & Proceedings and submitted that he
is not in a position to find out any document based
upon which name of Ribha Trikam has been removed from
the revenue record as one of the tenants. So far as
the contention of cross utilization of powers by the
Page 23 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
revenue authorities is concerned, learned AGP Mr.
Trivedi has fairly conceded that it is true that
there are so many discrepancies and lapses on the
part of the concerned revenue authorities in dealing
with the subject matter but at the same time the fact
remains that all the revenue authorities, for
safeguarding the interest of other coparceners, have
passed the impugned order after thorough
investigation and based upon the materials/documents
and considering the checkered history involved in the
instant matter. He, therefore, submits that when all
the revenue authorities have concurrently held that
the names of other persons of family members of Lakha
Trikam are also required to be inserted in the
revenue record and that too by keeping open to
agitate the civil rights of both the parties before
the competent Civil Court, this Court may not have to
interfere with those concurrent findings of fact.
16. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and having considered the
materials available on record, it is found out that
the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam had issued notice under
Section 84C of the Act to the petitioners and after
considering the materials and documents available on
record, the said notice has been withdrawn by holding
that considering the statement/reply of Khodabhai
i.e. the heir of tenant Lakhabhai Trikambhai, the
breach of the conditions of the Act has not been
Page 24 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
proved. The private respondents herein have assailed
the said order before the Deputy Collector by
contending that respondents herein have also equal
share in the subject land and therefore their names
may also be inserted in the revenue record and after
considering and appreciating the materials and
documents available on record, the Deputy Collector
remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar concerned
by specifically observing that other brothers of
Lakha Trikam are in possession and jointly
cultivating the subject land and they are also having
equal share in the subject land and therefore
direction is issued to the Mamlatdar to decide the
matter afresh after hearing the respondents herein as
well. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar & ALT initiated
remand proceedings and passed an order dated
09.07.1992. In the said order, the Mamlatdar & ALT
has, after considering the materials and documents as
well as depositions/statements of adjacent land
owners, specifically held that the legal heirs of
Trikam Rupa viz. Khoda Vala, Ribha Trikam, Mala
Trikam and their heirs viz. Ganda Vala, Vitthal Ribha
and Bhanabhai Malabhai are cultivating their
respective share of the subject land. It is also
observed in the order that despite an opportunity of
leading evidence was given to the petitioners to
prove that Khodabhai Lakhabhai alone is cultivating
the subject land, he has failed to produce any
document to that effect. It is also observed by the
Page 25 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Mamlatdar & ALT in the said order that police
complaints have also been filed by both the parties
against each other and disputes have been cropped up
between the parties about entering into the subject
land. Thereafter, twice the matter has been remanded
back to the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam and lastly on
04.08.1995, the Mamlatdar & ALT passed an order
reiterating the aforesaid fact and holding that other
brothers of Lakha Trikam are also in possession as
well as cultivating their respective share of the
subject land. The said view adopted by the Mamlatdar
has been confirmed by the Deputy Collector as well as
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Hence, by way of preferring
present petition, petitioners assailed all the three
orders passed by the revenue authorities.
17. It is pertinent to note that it is the case of
the petitioners that father of deceased petitioner
viz. Lakhabhai Trikambhai was the original tenant and
he had purchased the subject land from the original
owner in the proceedings initiated under Section 32G
of the Act and therefore certificate of purchase
under Section 32M of the Act has been issued in the
name of Lakhabhai Trikambhai alone and since then the
subject land is of the ownership and in occupation of
the petitioners only and none of the respondents have
any lawful right over the subject land, whereas, it
is the case of the private respondents that the
Page 26 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
subject land was originally of the ownership of grand
father of the petitioners as well as respondents i.e.
Trikambhai Rupabhai and as he was in need of money,
he sold the land to Ramjibhai Popatlal but the
possession was already with Ribha Trikam and Lakha
Trikam and they were jointly cultivating the said
land and at earlier point of time names of Ribha
Trikam and Lakha Trikam have been shown as the
general tenants. It is also the case of the private
respondents that notice under the provisions of
Section 32G of the Act has been issued to both Ribha
Trikam as well as Lakha Trikam but then after the
proceedings have been initiated against Lakha Trikam
only and certificate of purchase has been issued in
the name of Lakha Trikam only because of some family
arrangement and as per the prevalent practice at that
relevant point of time. It is also the case of the
private respondents herein that both the petitioners
as well as private respondents herein are cultivating
the subject land jointly and they are in possession
of their respective share of the subject land since
last many decades and therefore after recording the
statements of various witnesses/neighbours and after
considering and appreciating the documents as well as
materials available on record, all the revenue
authorities have held that including the petitioners,
private respondents herein are also in
possession/occupation of their respective share in
the subject land and indulged into the activities of
Page 27 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
cultivation of the said parcel of land since last
many years. It is pertinent to note that the
Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam has, vide order dated
04.08.1995, specifically held that for the disputed
question of inheritance, the parties have to get the
order from the competent Civil Court. Thus, it seems
that the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam passed the
impugned order, which is confirmed by the Deputy
Collector as well as GRT, based on the possession and
cultivation of the land in question by the private
respondents herein since last many years. It is also
pertinent to note that while passing the impugned
order, it was kept open for both the parties to
agitate their grievance before the competent Civil
Court for their civil rights. Thus, in the opinion of
this Court, the revenue authorities have not exceeded
their jurisdiction, as contended by learned advocate
Mr. Dhotre for the petitioners.
18. It is pertinent to note that after considering
and appreciating the materials, the Mamlatdar and ALT
has passed the impugned order holding that all the
persons are in possession and they are cultivating
their respective share of the subject land and as per
the provisions of Section 70(b) of the Act, the
Mamlatdar is empowered to decide as to whether a
person is, or was at any time in the past, a tenant,
a protected tenant, or a permanent tenant. Thus, when
Page 28 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
the Mamlatdar & ALT has passed the impugned order
specifically holding that private respondents herein
are also having equal share in the subject land and
they are in possession and cultivating the said land
since last many decades and therefore their names are
required to be inserted in the revenue record and the
said view is confirmed by all the revenue
authorities, it is not open for this Court to disturb
the said finding at this juncture especially when the
Mamlatdar is competent to decide the question of
tenancy as well as the fact that while passing the
impugned order, it is kept open for both the parties
to agitate their civil rights before the competent
civil court. It is the case of the petitioners that
some parcels of land are not part of Block Nos. 570
and 539 i.e. the subject land and those lands have
been purchased by the father of the deceased
petitioner by paying the amount to the landlord in
the tenancy proceedings, despite that, the
authorities concerned have inserted the names of
private respondents by holding that they are having
equal share in the subject land and subject land has
been purchased by Lakha Trikam as an administrator of
the joint family from the fund of the joint family,
however, the respondents have miserably failed to
produce any document to show that said fund was
generated by the family members and supplied to Lakha
Trikam. As against this, it is the case of the
respondents that petitioners have also failed to
Page 29 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
produce any document about the source of income of
Lakha Trikam from which he had purchased the subject
land from its original landlord. Thus, when the
Mamlatdar, who is empowered to decide the question of
tenancy, has already passed the order after thorough
inquiry and after verifying the revenue record and
when the said order is confirmed by the Deputy
Collector as well as GRT, the scope of interference
of this Court in the matter of concurrent findings of
fact recorded by the revenue authorities concerned is
very limited. Moreover, the Mamlatdar concerned has
examined Talati-cum-Mantri and thereafter jumped to
the conclusion that all the old survey numbers of
subject land have been merged in Block Nos. 570 and
539. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to
believe the argument canvassed by learned advocate
for the petitioners that certain survey numbers of
Block Nos. 570 and 539 are not the properties of
joint family. As observed above, while passing the
impugned order, it is also kept open for both the
parties to agitate their civil rights before the
competent civil Court.
19. Learned advocate for the petitioners has
emphatically submitted that the concerned revenue
authorities have initiated the proceedings belatedly
i.e. almost after 33 years and therefore as per the
numerous decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well this
Page 30 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Court, if the period is not prescribed in the statute
itself, in that event, the authority concerned has to
take the action within reasonable period and if any
action is taken beyond three years from the date of
the knowledge, it cannot be said to be within the
reasonable period. In support of his submission,
learned advocate Mr. Dhotre has put reliance upon
various decisions. It is pertinent to note that
initially the notice issued under Section 84C of the
Act has been withdrawn by the Mamlatdar & ALT by
holding Lakha Trikam only as a tenant. Therefore,
being aggrieved by the said order, immediately the
respondents herein have preferred revision before the
Deputy Collector. Thus, though the Mamlatdar & ALT
had initiated the proceeding under Section 84C of the
Act belatedly after 33 years, vide first order, the
said proceedings have already been dropped by the
Mamlatdar & ALT and said view is confirmed by all the
revenue authorities. Thus, the suo motu proceedings
initiated at the instance of the Mamlatdar under
Section 84C of the Act have already been dropped and
it is only when the first order came to be passed by
the Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam dropping the
proceedings under Section 84C by holding Lakha Trikam
only as the tenant, the cause of action has arisen
for the private respondents herein to challenge the
said decision. It is also pertinent to note that when
a person in whose favour a certificate of purchase
under Section 32M of the Act is issued for and on
Page 31 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
behalf of the family and if he refuses to give the
benefit of such a certificate to other family
members, in that event, it is for the Mamlatdar to
decide the issue under Section 70(b) of the Act as to
whether other persons are tenant or not. Thus,
looking to the peculiar facts of the present case,
the decisions upon which reliance is being placed by
learned advocate Mr. Dhotre for the petitioners would
not be of any help to the petitioners.
20. At this juncture, I would like to rely upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Shankerbhai
Kanjibhai (supra), wherein, the court observed as
under:
“11. Chapter III of the said Act in which
Section 32 finds its place captioned as
special rights and privileges of tenant and
provisions for distribution of land for
personal cultivation”. Part II of Chapter III
deals with purchase of lands by tenants.
Section 32 finds its place in this part. By
enacting Section 32 Legislature, inter alia
provided that on the first day of April, 1957
known as “Tillers’ Day” every tenant shall be
deemed to have purchased from his landlord
free of all encumbrances subsisting thereon
on the said day the land held by him as
tenant. In order to make effective the deemed
purchase by the tenant on “Tillers’ Day” the
Legislature enacted Section 32G prescribing
the procedure to be followed by Agricultural
Lands Tribunal. The Tribunal is required to
publish or cause to be published a public
notice in the prescribed form in each village
within its jurisdiction to all the tenantsPage 32 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
who under Section 32 are deemed to have
purchased the lands, and to all other persons
interested therein calling upon such persons
to appear before if on the specified date.
The Tribunal is required to record their
statements in the prescribed manner so as to
ascertain whether such tenant is or is not
willing to purchase the lands held by him as
tenant. If the tenant is willing to purchase
the land, the Tribunal is required after
giving opportunity to the tenant and the
landlord to determine the purchase price of
such land in accordance with provisions of
Section 32H. Once the purchase price is fixed
Section 32K prescribes mode of payment of
price by the tenant. If such purchase price
which is fixed is not paid by the permanent
tenant or sub-tenant it is stipulated that it
shall be recoverable as arrears of land
revenue. Section 32M thereafter provides that
on the deposit of the price either in lumpsum
or by deposit of last instalment of such
price the Tribunal shall issue a certificate
of purchase in the prescribed form to the
tenant in respect of land. Such certificate
shall be conclusive evidence of purchase.
12. From the scheme of the Act it becomes
clear that on or after the “Tillers’ Day”
notices are required to be issued to the
tenant or all persons interested in the land.
Generally the notice is sent to the person in
whose name land stands in the village record
or to the person who is shown to be
cultivating land. When a joint family is the
tenant of the land name of Karta or elderly
person of the family is mentioned as person
cultivating the land and he receives the
notice under Section 32G of the said Act. On
his expressing willingness to purchase the
land certificate of purchase under Section
32M is also issued in his name since the land
stands in his name in the revenue record. It
Page 33 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
would not, therefore, mean that such a person
was the sole tenant of the land in question
and the members of the joint family have no
right because certificate of purchase is
issued in favour of such person. Since joint
family can be a tenant and since one of the
members of joint family claims sole and
exclusive tenancy excluding other co-partners
or joint tenants from their right to claim
the share from such parcels of lands it is
required to be decided as to whether such
certificate of sale issued in favour of one
of the members of the family would for all
times to come be regarded as conclusive so as
to deny the just claim of the members of the
family over the parcels of lands.
13. The question posed for my consideration
came to be indirectly considered by the
learned single Judge of this Court in the
case of Nanba, Widow of deceased Hemantsingh
Malubha and Ors. v. Ajitsingh, reported in
(1976) XVII GLR 975. The learned Judge of
this Court after referring to the Full Bench
decision of the Bombay High Court held that
the question whether a person is tenant or
not is not limited to the narrower issue
whether a person is a tenant of a particular
land. Irrespective of the question whether
the issue is raised by the landlord or by a
tenant or a co-tenant or any other person it
will still be a question whether a person is
a tenant. Therefore, the question
contemplated by Section 70(b) of the Bombay
Tenancy Act is not limited to an issue
between the landlord and the tenant. It is
the function of the Mamlatdar to decide
whether a person is a tenant and when the
legislature has used that expression there is
no reason for curtailing its amplitude by
saying that the issue which the Mamlatdar has
to decide is only an issue whether a person
Page 34 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
is a tenant of particular landlord. In the
case of Rajaram Totdram Patel v. Mahipal
Mahadu Patel and Ors., the Full Bench of the
Bombay High Court was called upon to decide
the identical question. Before the Bombay
High Court the plaintiff claimed declaration
that the defendant-his brother was not
entitled to be declared purchaser tenant and
that the decision taken behind his back
without hearing him was null and void He
further claimed that actually he was in
possession of the land and that the defendant
should be restrained from interfering with
his possession. The defendant, on the other
hand, claimed that he was the sole tenant of
the land and that he was rightly declared to
be the tenant of the land. It was in this
situation that the question arose as to
whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to
try the suit in view of the provisions of
Sections 70 and 85 of the said Act, and
further as to whether question of this nature
would fall within Section 70 read with
Section 85 of the said Act. Full Bench of
Bombay High Court after considering various
decisions of the Bombay High Court and
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Bhimji v. Dundappa, held that the question
whether a person is a tenant is not limited
to narrower issue whether a person is a
tenant of a particular landlord irrespective
of the question whether the question is
raised by the landlord or a tenant or a co-
tenant or anyother person. It will still be a
question whether a person is a tenant.
Therefore, even if dispute exists between a
tenant and co-tenant the question would fall
within the ambit of Section 70(b) and the
same can be tried by Mamlatdar. It is thus
clear that when two persons claim to be the
owners of certain tenancy rights as in the
case before me, it is a question which falls
within the jurisdiction of Mamlatdar under
Page 35 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Section 70(b) to decide whether a person is a
tenant. Such controversy would arise in case
where a joint family is the tenant and
certificate of purchase is issued in favour
of Karta or elderly member of the family. If
he denies benefit of such certificate to the
other members of the family they would come
forward and claim the tenancy rights. It is
undoubtedly true that the certificate of
purchase is issued in favour of Karta or
elderly member of the family. Still, however,
question will be whether such certificate of
purchase was issued to an individual or
whether it was issued to him for and on
behalf of joint family so as to ensure for
the benefit of the members of the family. I
am therefore of the opinion that issuance of
certificate of purchase is conclusive as
against the landlord only it cannot be said
to be conclusive, vis-a-vis, coparceners or
joint tenants who were not parties in
previous proceedings under Section 32G of the
said Act. Such certificate of purchase would
put an end to any controversy between the
landlord and the tenant. However, when it
transpires that the person to whom the
certificate of purchase was issued was the
Karta of the joint family or elderly person
of the joint family and that the tenants was
of the joint family, other members of the
family or co-tenants can claim the benefit of
very certificate. Such certificate cannot be
said to be conclusive vis-a-vis joint tenants
so as to deny their just right to be deemed
purchaser of the lands in question. In fact,
when just claim of such joint tenants is
sought to be denied by the holder of
certificate of purchase, question
contemplated by Section 70(b) would
immediately arise, namely, whether the
members of joint family are joint tenants
along with the holder of certificate of
purchase. Such a question necessarily falls
Page 36 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
within the ambit of Section 70(b) and as held
by the learned Judge of this Court in the
case of Nanba Widow of deceased Hemantsingh
Maluhha and Ors. v. Ajitsingh, (supra) and
the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in
the case of Rajaram Totaram Patel v. Mahipal
Mahadu Patel and Ors., (supra) it shall have
to be tried by Mamlatdar under Section 70(b)
of the said Act.
14. In the case of Mohmadkhan Jamiyalkhan v.
Dadamiya Mohamadmiya, , the learned single
Judge of this Court held that under Section
70(b) read with Section 85A of the said Act
whether a person is a tenant or not is a
question that falls within the jurisdiction
of Mamlatdar. Even a plea raised by the
defendant that he is a tenant in a proceeding
for possession of land from him excludes the
jurisdiction even if competent Civil Court
which is otherwise competent to decide the
suit. The Court, therefore, held that even a
competent Civil Court must refer the issued
under Section 70 of the Tenancy Act to
Mamlatdar. That was the case where the
question arose in a proceeding under Section
84 of the said Act instituted by the landlord
for summary eviction of the tenant. The
brother of the tenant surrendered the parcels
of land and such surrender was verified by
the order of Mamlatdar under Section 15(2) of
the said Act. Petitioner however was found to
be in possession of the land. The landlord,
therefore, filed application under Section 84
for getting possession of the land from the
petitioner on the ground that lie was a
trespasser. Petitioner raised question that
in fact he was the tenant of the said land
and the question arose as to whether this
question could have been raised before the
Prant Officer under Section 84 or whether he
was required to refer the question to
Page 37 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Mamlatdar and ALT. The learned single Judge
of this Court relying upon the decision of
the Division Bench of Bombay High Court held
that in an application under Section 84 if
the question was raised whether a person
concerned was a tenant or not of the land in
question it is only the Mamlatdar under
Section 70(b) who can decide the question
whether a person is a tenant or not and the
Prant Officer dealing with application under
Section 84 must direct the party concerned to
apply to the Mamlatdar and obtain decision
from him whether a person concerned was
tenant or not. Prant Officer under Section 84
has no jurisdiction to decide whether a
person concerned was tenant of land in
dispute. In fact, when such a question is
raised the Prant Officer is required to stay
his hands so far as the proceedings under
Section 84 was concerned and he should ask
the party concerned to approach Mamlatdar
under Section 70(b) for an appropriate
decision on the question of tenancy. I am,
therefore, of the opinion that where in
proceedings under Section 84 of the Act a
question is raised by the person in
possession of the land that he is also the
tenant of the land or that he is the joint
tenant of the land and when such a statement
is doubled by the applicant who claims to be
the sole tenant of the land, the dispute is
between joint tenants and such dispute can
only be decided by the Mamlatdar & ALT under
Section 70(b). The certificate of purchase
issued in favour of a person whose name
appeared in the revenue record would not be
conclusive vis-a-vis joint tenants whose
tenancy rights he seeks to negate on the
strength of certificate of purchase. It is
conclusive vis-a-vis the landlord only. The
members of the joint family cannot be denied
their just right simply because the
certificate of purchase was issued in favour
Page 38 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
of Karta of joint family or the elderly
person of joint family. The very fact that
the application for eviction of such joint
tenants was required to be filed under
Section 84 of the Act justifies the inference
that such persons were in possession and
continued to remain in possession as joint
tenants. Therefore when in proceeding under
Section 84 such persons claim to be the joint
tenants, being the members of the joint
family the question raised by them is as to
whether they are joint tenants of the parcels
of lands along with the persons in whose
favour certificate of purchase under Section
32M is issued and such a question is one
which can be tried by Mamlatdar under Section
70(b) of the said Act read with Section 85A
of the said Act. I am, therefore, of the
opinion that the Dy. Collector, Vyara was
fully justified in staying the proceedings
before him and in directing the present
respondents to move the Mamlatdar under
Section 70(b) of the said Act. In fact,
proceedings under Section 70(b) have already
been concluded in favour of present
respondents. I, therefore, do not find any
substance in the first submission of Mr.
Shelat and it must therefore fail.”
21. Thus, from the aforesaid observations, it
transpires that if the certificate of purchase is
issued under Section 32M of the Act in the name of
Karta or elderly person of a joint family in whose
name land stands, it would not mean that such a
person is the sole tenant of the land. The
certificate of purchase is issued to the Karta of the
family for and on behalf of the family and therefore
other members of the family can also claim the
Page 39 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
benefit of such a certificate. Moreover, attention of
this Court is also drawn to a G.R dated 15.03.1996,
whereby, the Collectors of the State are directed to
mutate the names of all the remaining
brothers/sisters in the revenue record for the land
of a new tenure, land given on Santhani and land
where the provisions of the Act are applicable, upon
the death of the elder brother whose name is mutated
in the revenue record qua those categories of land.
The object and reason for issuance of the aforesaid
G.R. is that generally on sad demise of the original
allottee or Karta of a Joint Family, the name of his
elder son is mutated in the revenue record and the
names of other heirs of the original allottee are not
mutated and after the death of elder son or Karta of
the joint family, the names of his legal heirs are
mutated in the revenue record, depriving the interest
of other legal heirs of the original allottee and
therefore with a sole intent to safeguard the
interest of other heirs of the original allottee, by
way of aforesaid GR, the Collectors of the State are
directed to mutate the names of remaining
brothers/sisters (the heirs of original allottee) of
the elder son or Karta of the joint family. Moreover,
it is also found out from entry No.1129 mutated on
29.10.1948 that after the death of Trikam Rupa, being
the Karta of the joint family, name of Ribha Trikam
is mutated in the revenue record and in the said
entry it is specifically observed that Ribha Trikam,
Page 40 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Mala Trikam, Lakha Trikam as well as Ganda Vala are
the legal heirs of Trikam Rupa and since they are
residing in a joint family and Ribha Trikam being the
administrator of the family, his name is required to
be mutated as Karta of the joint family and therefore
name of Ribha Trikam is mutated as Karta of the joint
family. I have also gone through entry No.1370
mutated in the revenue record on 31.03.1959 from
which it transpires that along with Lakha Trikam,
name of Vibha (sic Ribha) Trikam is also shown as
ordinary tenant and both Lakha Trikam and Ribha
Trikam were jointly cultivating the subject land. It
is also pertinent to note that during the course of
hearing of this petition, direction came to be issued
to learned advocate for the petitioners as well as
learned AGP to produce the documents based on which
the name of Ribha Trikam has been removed from the
revenue record as an ordinary tenant. However,
petitioners as well as learned AGP have failed to do
so. I have also gone through the reasoning recorded
by the Mamlatdar & ALT while passing the impugned
order, which is confirmed by the Deputy Collector as
well as GRT, and I am of the opinion that while
keeping it open for both the parties to agitate their
grievance before the competent Civil Court as regards
their civil rights, the concerned revenue authority
has not committed any error which warrants any
interference at the hands of this Court.
Page 41 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
22. It is also pertinent to note that there are so
many discrepancies and procedural lapses on the part
of the revenue authorities concerned in conducting
the subject matter but considering the following
aspects, I am not inclined to entertain this
petition.
i. That all the authorities have, after
appreciating and considering the materials
including the statements of neighbours,
specifically held that the other members of
the joint family are also in possession and
occupation of the subject land and they are
cultivating their respective share of the
subject land since last many years and
therefore their names are required to be
inserted as co-occupiers and while passing the
order, it is specifically observed by the
Mamlatdar & ALT, Viramgam that it is open for
both the parties to agitate their grievance
before the competent civil court for their
civil rights.
ii. Initially, the notices under Section 32G
of the Act have been issued to Ribha Trikam as
well as Lakha Trikam but thereafter name of
Ribha Trikam has been removed and certificate
of purchase has been issued only in the name
Page 42 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
of Lakha Trikam and learned advocate for the
petitioners as well as learned AGP have failed
to give any explanation and/or produce any
document as to why the name of Ribha Trikam
has been removed from the revenue record.
Iii. The name of Ribha Trikam along with Lakha
Trikam was also reflected in the revenue
record as tenant of the original landlord.
However, thereafter the name of Ribha Trikam
has been removed from the revenue record and
petitioner has failed to produce any cogent
and reliable evidence on record showing the
plausible reason why the name of Ribha Trikam
has been removed from the revenue record as a
tenant.
iv. Looking to the G.R dated 15.03.1996 as
well as the decision of this Court in the case
of Shankerbhai Kanjibhai (supra), I am of the
considered view that the rights of other
members of a joint family are required to be
safeguarded and by doing so, the revenue
authorities have not committed any error,
which requires any interference at the hands
of this Court.
Page 43 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14134/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
v. There are so many other issues which are
required to be decided by the competent Civil
Court by appreciating oral as well as
documentary evidence and while passing the
impugned order, the said aspect has been taken
care of by the concerned revenue authority.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the
petition is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, it
is dismissed. Rule discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
Page 44 of 44
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:39:44 IST 2026
