Civil courts lack jurisdiction under the Ceiling Act, and claims of adverse possession require clear evidence of hostility and registered documentation to establish ownership.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short) being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common order and decree dated 16.4.2021 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Bhavnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.57 of 2017 and allied matters as well as the judgment and decree dated 1.7.2017 passed by the learned 8th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar in Regular Civil suit No.450 of 2009 by suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the Appellant proves the order passed by the respondents in the ceiling case as well as in the remand application, are illegal void ab initio and not binding on the appellant.

2. Whether the Appellant proves that the suit is in his possession since the year 1954-55.

3. Whether the Appellant proves that he has become the owner of the suit land by virtue of the Sale Deed executed in his favour by Dr.Virbhadrasinh Krushnakumarsinhji.

4. Whether the Appellant proves that he has become the owner of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession.

5. Whether the Appellant proves that the respondents are not having any right, title or interest in the suit land.

6. Whether the Appellant is entitled to get permanent injunction as prayed for.

7. Whether the Appellant proves that he is entitled to get his name mutated in the revenue records with respect to the subject land.

8. Whether the respondents prove that the subject land is barred by Law of Limitation.

9. Whether the respondents prove that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present Appeal.”

2. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

2.1 Learned advocate Mr.Dholakiya for the appellant has submitted that the land bearing survey no.33,114 admeasuring Acre 6.00 10.00 gunthas is under dispute; that the revision application was proceeded in compliance of the provisions of The Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (‘the Ceiling Act’ for short), wherein the order was passed on 30.1.1994 wherein the land in question was kept free from agricultural ceiling limit; that the ceiling case no.76-77 was initiated before the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Commission (respondent no.3), where declaration by Maharaja was given but was not considered; that the Maharaja Bhavnagar preferred Revision Application No.9 of 1981 before the Collector in which the collector, by way of order dated 20.7.1981, dismissed the order dated 23.3.1981 and remanded it to the respondent no.2-Mamlatdar and Agricultural Commission. He submitted that as the respondents were trying to vacate the possession from the farmers, the farmers and the appellant were compelled to prefer Regular Civil Suit before the Civil Court, Bhavnagar along with application for temporary injunction, which came to be rejected against which the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was preferred wherein stay till final disposal was granted.

2.2 Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the ancestors/family of the appellant are in constant and uninterrupted possession of the disputed land since 1954-55; that they used to carry out agricultural activity on the said land but later on, the lands were developed by his ancestors; that as the said lands were waste lands, the Maharaja sold the lands to the ancestors of the appellant at a cheaper rate for carrying out agricultural activities by executing Satakhat in their favour; that in the month of March, 1974, Dr.Virbhadrasinhji (son of Krushnakant ji) also decided to sell the suit lands and the adjoining lands to the respective possessors at Rs.101.00 per vigha and for this purpose he executed POA in the name of eight persons and the POA accepted Rs.75 per vigha from the ancestors of the appellant, other farmers also paid the earnest money and common receipts accepting such money were issued to them; the application for mutating their names was preferred by the appellant and other farmers which was rejected with a remark that their names can only be mut