The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of testamentary succession and the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, such as initiating proceedings under Section 84C in a timely manner.

JUDGMENT :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. This intra-court appeal lays a challenge to the order dated 27.2.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7045 of 2018. Though the matter is listed on admission, by consent of learned advocates appearing for both parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. Facts shown of unnecessarily details can be crystallised as under.

3. The land bearing Survey No. 103/1 paiki 2 in Village: Kamodi, Taluka: Deesa, District Banaskantha, admeasuring 0- H-25-A-28 sq. mtrs. (2591 sq. mtrs.) was originally owned by one Mr. Harijan Pethabhai Bhikabhai and during his lifetime he executed a Will dated 5.7.2005 bequeathing the said property in favour of writ applicant and on his demise on 29.12.2005, writ applicant claims to have acquired right, title and interest over the said property by virtue of testamentary succession. Hence, an application was submitted to the revenue authorities to mutate the revenue records and accordingly, the revenue entry came to be mutated on 23.5.2006 in Revenue Entry No. 1395 and same came to be certified on 1.11.2006 in the name of the writ applicant namely, Mr. Jayantilal Jamnadas Thakkar and Smt. Kashiben Bansilal Modi (Heruwala). After a lapse of 5 years, respondent No. 2 herein filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector on 29.3.2011 in RTS Appeal No. 62 of 2011 which came to be dismissed on 30.4.2012 (Annexure-D). Being aggrieved by the same, revision was preferred before the Collector, Banaskantha in Revision Case No. 38 of 2014 which came to be heard and allowed on 20.9.2014. The Collector has also directed that proceedings be initiated under Section 84C of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1949 against the writ applicant. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order, revision application was filed before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department along with an application for stay of the operation of the order of the Collector. The interim application for stay was rejected and being aggrieved by the same, Special Civil Application No. 14326 of 2015 came to be filed challenging the order dated 7.7.2015 (refusing to grant stay of the operation of the order of the Collector). The said Special Civil Application No. 14326 of 2015 came to be allowed with a prayer to consider the main revision application and also the issue regarding maintainability and delay aspect. The revision application came to be rejected by Special Secretary, Revenue Department vide order dated 20/26.2.2018. Hence, being aggrieved by the same, Special Civil Application being Special Civil Application No. 7045 of 2018 came to be filed.

4. The learned Single Judge, after considering rival contentions raised thereunder while placing reliance upon the judgment of Mahadeo (Dead through Legal Representatives) vs. Shakuntalabai, (2017) 13 SCC 756, arrived at a conclusion that right created in favour of writ applicant petitioner through Will dated 5.7.2005 is valid and in such circumstances, the subject property is devolved upon the predecessors-in-title and owner. Hence, the Special Civil Application came to be allowed and the impugned orders dated 26.2.2018 and 20.9.2014 passed in Revision Application No. 144 of 2014 and Revision Case No. 38 of 2014 came to be quashed. Hence this appeal.

5. It is the contention of Mr. Manan Mehta, learned AGP appearing for the State that learned Single Judge erred in arriving at a conclusion that there is devolution of interest by virtue of the Will executed by the deceased owner in favour of a non-agriculturist, they said transaction was contrary to the statutory provision. He would elaborate his submissions by contending that learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahadeo (supra) which has since been overruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2020) 18 SCC 144 and as such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ peti