Gujarat High Court
Legal Heris And Repr. Of … vs State Of Gujarat on 15 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14551/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14551 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
LEGAL HERIS AND REPR. OF DECD.THAKORBHAI K PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
LAW VERDICT(4012) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KK TRIVEDI(934) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1
MR.MANAN BHATT(6535) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
MR. JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR YH MOTIRAMANI(3720) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5,6,7,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 15/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) By way of filing present petition under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, petitioners herein have prayed for
following reliefs:
”(A) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside the impugned orders .
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay execution,
operation and implementation of the impugned orders and be
further pleased to stay further proceedings, if any, initiated
by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. (Ceiling), Olpad pursuant to thePage 1 of 15
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 01:55:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/14551/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
impugned order ;
(C) Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and
expedient in view of the facts and circumstances of the case
may kindly be granted.
(D) Costs of this petition may kindly be awarded to the
present petitioners.”
2) The case of the petitioners can be conceptualised in a
nutshell as under:
2.1) One Kuberbhai Lallubhai was the common ancestor of all
the petitioners. After his sad demise, his widow Kashiben and his
two sons jointly inherited the lands held by the deceased
Kuberbhai. The lands were measured when the entry was
mutated in their favour on 01.04.1966. As per the statutory
provisions of law, namely the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling
Act, 1960, (herein referred to as “The Act“) Kashiben was entitled
to hold three units out of the total holding of the deceased
Kuberbhai. The family of Kashiben consisted of more than five
members on the date when the Ceiling Act came into force.
Therefore, under the provisions of Section 6(3B) of the Act, the
family was entitled to an additional 2/5th unit. The Deputy
Collector dismissed the applications preferred by the deceased
Thakorbhai Kuberbhai Patel.
2.2) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision, a
Revision Application was preferred before the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the revision application by
setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector and held
Page 2 of 15
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 01:55:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14551/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
that Shri Thakorbhai Kuberbhai Patel would be entitled to hold
three units as on 01.04.1976. However, such holding was made
subject to the provisions of Sections 9 and 9A of the Act, and the
matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar and ALT, Oplad. The said
order was challenged by filing a petition before this Court.
However, the proceedings were withdrawn with liberty to file
afresh applications before the concerned authority, limited to
filing review applications with respect to the additional claim of
2/5th unit under Section 6(3B) of the Act. The said review
application came to be dismissed. The petitioners had restricted
their claim only to the extent of an additional 2/5th unit under
Section 6(3B) of the Act, and the State had neither filed any
review application nor challenged the order passed by the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal before any Court. Despite the above,
while considering the review on merits, the Revenue Tribunal
dismissed the review applications and also held that the
petitioners were not entitled even to the holding of three units.
Hence, the present petition is filed.
3) Heard learned senior counsel Mr. Asim Pandya, assisted by
learned advocate Mr. Manan Bhatt for the petitioners, learned
advocate Mr. Y.H. Motiramani for the respondents and learned
AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for Respondent – State.
4) Learned senior counsel Mr. Asim Pandya, assisted by
learned advocate Mr. Manan Bhatt for the petitioners, submits
that the issue involved in the present matter lies in a narrow
Page 3 of 15
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 01:55:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14551/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
compass. He submits that proceedings under the Gujarat
Agricultural Land Ceiling Act were initiated by the revenue
authorities against the petitioner, and the said proceedings were
carried to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal partly
allowed the revision application by quashing and setting aside
the order passed by the Deputy Collector and held that the
holding of three units as on 01.04.1976 would be subject to any
changes in the members of the family, to be assigned in favour of
the petitioner.
4.1) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision of
the Revenue Tribunal, a petition was filed before this Court. The
said petition came to be withdrawn with specific liberty to file a
review application in view of the scheme of Section 6(3B) of the
Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act. Thereafter, a review
application was preferred before the concerned authority,
however, the same came to be dismissed. While dismissing the
review application, the Revenue Tribunal took a specific view
that, instead of three units, the petitioner would be entitled only
to the benefit of two and one half ceiling units as on 01.04.1976.
4.2) Learned senior advocate Mr. Pandya submits that it is an
admitted position of fact that no cross-review application had
been filed by the State Government. He further submits that the
issue involved in the Review Application was very limited, namely,
that on the basis of the statutory provisions of the said Act, more
particularly the scheme of Section 6(3B) of the Gujarat
Page 4 of 15
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 01:55:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14551/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, the units of the petitioner were
required to be enhanced or not? However, instead of enhancing
the units, the Review Application came to be dismissed on merits
and, ultimately, the units were reduced from three to two and
one half. He submits that the view adopted by the authority is,
prima facie, contrary to the settled proposition of law. He further
submits that while entertaining a review application, the
authority is required to consider only two courses: either to
dismiss the review application or to grant the reliefs prayed for
by the applicant, i.e., enhancement of units in favour of the
petitioner. Instead of adopting either of these courses, the
authority has taken an altogether third course by reducing the
units already granted in the earlier proceedings, that too in the
absence of any challenge or proceedings initiated by the
respondents.
4.3) Learned senior advocate Mr. Pandya, therefore, submitted
that solely on this technical ground, without entering into the
merits of the matter, the impugned order deserves to be
quashed and set aside, and the matter be remanded to the
concerned authority to decide afresh. He further submits that
the concerned authority, while deciding the Review Application,
has exceeded its jurisdiction, and such action is contrary to the
settled proposition of law.
4.4) Considering the above-stated factual aspects of the matter,
he submitted that there is merit in the petition and therefor, the
Page 5 of 15
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 01:55:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14551/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
present application is required to be allowed by quashing and
setting aside the impugned order, solely on the basis of settled
proposition of law that at the time of entertaining the merits of
the review whether any cross-review application is preferred by
the State or not?
5) Learned advocate Mr. Y.H. Motiramani appearing for
Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 has submitted that, at the instance of the
applications preferred by the petitioner, and during the
pendency of the present proceedings, the petitioner had
preferred a Civil Application before this Court. The said Civil
Application came to be considered and decided by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court. Pursuant to the order passed by
the Coordinate Bench in the said Civil Application, the present
respondents entered into transactions with the petitioner and
purchased the subject property. It is submitted that such
transactions were carried out by way of execution of a registered
sale deed, after payment of the agreed sale consideration to the
petitioner. Thus, he submits that the respondents have acquired
rights in respect of the subject property on the strength of a
judicial order passed by this Court. He has further submitted that
the said order passed by the learned Single Judge was
subsequently challenged by the State Government by way of
filing Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench. The
Division Bench, after considering the matter, quashed and set
aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
5.1) Learned advocate Mr. Motiramani has emphasized that
Page 6 of 15
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 01:55:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14551/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
during the interregnum period, i.e., the period between the
passing of the order by the learned Single Judge and its
subsequent quashing by the Division Bench, the transactions
between the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 had already
been completed. Therefore, the respondents have acted bona
fide and have purchased the property by paying valuable
consideration. He further submits that in view of these
completed transactions, the respondents have acquired a
substantial interest in the subject property and, therefore, they
are required to be treated as proper and necessary parties to the
proceedings. He submits that any decision taken in the present
proceedings or before the revenue authorities, would directly
affect the rights and interests of the respondents. He has also
submitted that although the order of the learned Single Judge
has been set aside by the Division Bench, the rights which have
accrued in favour of the respondents during the interregnum
period are required to be protected in accordance with law.
5.2) Learned advocate Mr. Motiramani has further submitted
that the respondents intend to approach the concerned Revenue
Tribunal by filing an appropriate application seeking to be joined
as party respondents in the pending proceedings. It is, therefore,
requested that such application, if filed, may be considered and
decided by the Revenue Tribunal independently, on its own
merits and in accordance with law. It is also requested that the
Revenue Tribunal may decide such application without being
influenced by any observations made by this Court while deciding
Page 7 of 15
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 01:55:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14551/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
the present petition. In view of the submissions thereof, it is
contended that Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are proper and
necessary parties and deserve an opportunity of hearing before
any order is passed by the concerned authority.
6) Learned A.G.P. Mr. Jay Trivedi for the Respondent-State
has read the operative part of the order and candidly conceded
that, prima facie, it appears that no cross-review application had
been preferred by the State in those proceedings. In the absence
of any such prayer at the instance of the State, the authority
concerned ought not to have considered the merits of the case in
the review application instituted by the petitioner.
7) Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and having gone through the records and
material available on record, it is found out from the record that
it is an admitted position of fact that proceedings were initially
initiated at the instance of the revenue authority under the
provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, as the
petitioners were found to be holding surplus land. After
considering and appreciating all those material on record, the
competent revenue authority passed an order declaring certain
parcels of land as surplus. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied
with the said order passed by the Deputy Collector, the
petitioners preferred a Revision Application before the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the matter,
partly allowed the revision application by holding that the
Page 8 of 15
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 01:55:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14551/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
petitioners were entitled to three units of the land in question as
on 01.04.1976, subject to any subsequent change in the members
of the family, which may require invocation of the provisions of
Sections 9 and 9A of the Ceiling Act. The matter was, thereafter,
remanded back to the Mamlatdar for passing appropriate orders
under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act.
7.1) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
decision of the Tribunal, the petitioners preferred a Special Civil
Application before this Court. However, the said petition was not
entertained and came to be withdrawn with liberty to file a
review application before the competent authority. Pursuant to
the liberty so granted, the petitioners preferred a review
application before the Tribunal. The said review application came
to be dismissed. However, while dismissing the review
application, the Tribunal once again entered into the merits of
the case in detail, which prima facie appears to be beyond the
scope of its jurisdiction. It is well settled that the power of review
vested in the Tribunal is akin to that of a Civil Court and is
circumscribed by statutory limitations. The Tribunal can exercise
the power of review only on the grounds enumerated under
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely:
(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which,
despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the
applicant or could not be produced at the time when the order
was passed;
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
Page 9 of 15
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 01:55:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/14551/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
(iii) any other sufficient reason.
Thus, the Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the entire matter on
merits while exercising its review jurisdiction.
8) In this regard, I would like to refer and rely on the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. vs.
Kamal Sengupta & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1694 of 2006 decided on
16.06.2008, read as under:
”15. The term ‘mistake or error apparent’ by its very
connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the
record of the case and does not require detailed examination,
scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal
position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof
requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be
treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the
purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act.
To put it differently, an order or decision or judgment cannot
be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the
ground that a different view could have been taken by the
Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while
exercising the power of review, the concerned Court/Tribunal
cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.”
23. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma
(supra), this Court considered the scope of the High Courts’
power to review an order passed under Article 226 of the
Constitution, referred to an earlier decision in Shivdeo Singh
vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909] and observed :
{{
“It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v.
State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909, there is nothing in
Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High
Court from exercising the power of review which is
inherent in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to
prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave andPage 10 of 15
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 01:55:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/14551/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
palpable errors committed by it. But, there are
definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review.
The power of review may be exercised on the
discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence was not
within the knowledge of the person seeking the
review or could not be produced by him at the time
when the order was made; it may be exercised where
some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record is found; it may also be exercised on any
analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the
ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A
power of review is not to be confused with appellate
power which may enable an Appellate Court to
correct all matters or errors committed by the
Subordinate Court.”
8.1) At this juncture, I would like to reproduce, the extracts of
the decision in the case of Parison Devi and Ors. Vs Sumitri Devi
and Ors. wherein it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as
herein under:
”Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to
review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on
the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and
has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be
said to be an error apparent on the face of the record
justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order
47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47
Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to
be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be
remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be
“an appeal in disguise.”
”Considered in the light of this settled position we fine that
Sharma, J. clearly over-stepped the jurisdiction vested in the
court under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC The observation of Sharma,
Page 11 of 15
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 01:55:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14551/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
J. that “accordingly”, the order in question is reviewed and it
is held that the decree in question is reviewed and it is held
that the decree in question was of composite nature wherein
both mandatory and prohibitory injunction were provided”
and as such the case was covered by Article the scope of
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC There is a clear distinction between an
erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the
record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum,
the later only can be corrected by exercise of the review
jurisdiction. While passing the impugned order, Sharma, J.
found the order in Civil Revision dated 25.4.1989 as an
erroneous decision, though without saying so in so many
words. Indeed, while passing the impugned order Sharma, J.
did record that there was a mistake or an error apparent on
the face of the record which not of such a nature, “Which had
to be detected by a long drawn process of reasons” and
proceeded to set at naught the order of Gupta, J. However,
mechanical use of statutorily sanctified phrases cannot
detract from the real import of the order passed in exercise of
the review jurisdiction. Recourse to review petition in the
facts and circumstances of the case was not permissible. The
aggrieved judgment debtors could have approached the
higher forum through appropriate proceedings, to assail the
order of Gupta, J. and get it set aside but it was not open to
them to seek a “review of the order of petition. In this view of
the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of
Sharma, J. cannot be sustained and accordingly accept this
appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 6.3.1997.”
9) The above-stated principle of law enunciated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court crystallizes the position of fact that the
Tribunal possesses the ample power to entertain a review
application, and such power is akin to that conferred upon a Civil
Court under the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. While exercising such jurisdiction, the Court or
Tribunal is required to examine whether there exists any errorPage 12 of 15
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 01:55:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/14551/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
apparent on the face of the record at the time of delivering the
judgment. Further, where a review application is preferred on the
ground of discovery of new and important material or evidence,
the same is required to be considered strictly on the basis of such
material, provided it was not within the knowledge of the
applicant or could not be produced despite due diligence at the
relevant time. However, it is well settled that the merits of the
matter cannot be re-examined while exercising review
jurisdiction. Re-appreciation of evidence and reconsideration of
the merits fall within the domain of appellate jurisdiction and not
within the limited scope of review. Any error in the decision on
merits is required to be addressed in appeal proceedings before
the appropriate forum.
10) Now, considering the factual aspects of the present case, it
appears from the record that based upon the liberty granted by
this Court, a review application was preferred before the
Revenue Tribunal. However, while entertaining and deciding the
said review application, the Tribunal has once again examined the
merits of the case. It is also an admitted position of fact that the
State Government did not file any review application challenging
the earlier decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, while deciding the
review application filed by the petitioners, the Tribunal was
required to keep itself within a very limited scope, namely, to
ascertain whether there existed any error apparent on the face
of the record. The Tribunal was not entitled to re-examine the
merits of the case. However, from the record, it is evident thatPage 13 of 15
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 01:55:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/14551/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
the Tribunal has considered the merits of the matter in great
detail and has passed a reasoned order after an elaborate
discussion of the evidence and material on record. Prima facie,
such an approach is not in consonance with the statutory
provisions governing review jurisdiction. By doing so, the Tribunal
has exceeded its jurisdiction. Therefore, solely on this ground,
the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside, and
the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration.
10.1) It further appears from the record that while withdrawing
the earlier petition before this Court, liberty was specifically
sought to file a review application before the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal and pursuant thereto, the petitioners preferred the said
review application and while deciding the review application, the
Tribunal was required to consider only two aspects: firstly, if
there was merit in the application, in that event, the application
was required to be allowed. Secondly, if there was no merit in the
application, in that event, the same was required to be dismissed
without entering into the merits of the case. In the present case
on hand, prima facie, it appears that at the time of deciding the
Review Application, the Tribunal appears to have adopted a third
course. It has re-examined the merits of the case and has jumped
to the conclusion that the earlier order granting the benefit of
three units to the petitioners is required to be reconsidered by
reducing the said units. The said view adopted by the Revenue
Tribunal, without any application or prayer preferred at the
Page 14 of 15
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 01:55:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14551/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
instance of the State authority, tantamounts to overstepping the
limits of jurisdiction. The said view adopted by the Revenue
Tribunal is against the settled principles of law and therefore,
requires to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present
petition.
10.2) It is also found out from the record that, while deciding the
review application, the Tribunal has treated the earlier decision
as an erroneous one and proceeded to correct it. It is well settled
that there is a clear distinction between an “erroneous decision”
and an “error apparent on the face of the record.” An erroneous
decision can be corrected only by a higher forum in appellate
proceedings, whereas review jurisdiction is confined to
correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. A review
proceeding cannot be used as a mechanism to re-hear and
correct an allegedly erroneous decision.
11) Considering the above-stated factual aspects of the matter,
present petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the
Revenue Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is
remanded to the concerned Revenue Tribunal to decide the
review application afresh, strictly in accordance with law and
within the limited scope of review jurisdiction, after providing
adequate opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
GARVITA
Page 15 of 15
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 01:55:12 IST 2026
[ad_1]
Source link
