The court established that amendments to the Tenancy Act permit post facto permissions for agricultural land transfers, impacting the maintainability of suits involving such lands.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the original plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”), challenging the order dated 05.02.2022 passed by the learned 16th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara on Exh.22 in Special Civil Suit No.306 of 2018. By the said impugned order, the learned Judge has allowed the application preferred by the original defendant nos.1 to 3 at Exh.22 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code, thereby rejecting the plaint followed by consequential order of dismissal of suit passed below Exh.1.

2. In nutshell, the facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint, are as under:

2.1. The present appellant/original plaintiff-Trust has filed Special Civil Suit No.306 of 2018 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vadodara seeking various reliefs.

2.2. It is the case of the original plaintiff that agricultural land bearing Block No.220 Paiki, Revenue Survey No.383 Paiki of moje Ankhol, Taluka-Vadodara ad-measuring 2-18-74 sq. mtrs. was originally owned by defendant nos.1 and 2. Similarly agricultural land bearing Block No.221/b, Revenue Survey No.387 ad-measuring 0-60-70, Revenue Survey No.531 ad-measuring 0-05-06 and Block No.221/a, Revenue Survey No.390 ad-measuring 0-48-56 and Revenue Survey No.391 ad-measuring 0-49-57 of moje Ankhol, Taluka-Vadodara was owned by defendant no.3. For the sake of convenience the aforesaid lands are referred as “suit lands”.

2.3. It is further contended that the aforesaid suit lands were gifted to the plaintiff-Trust, which was reduced in the form of trust deed on 17.08.1995 by the aforesaid defendant nos.1 to 3. It is further contended that in fact the application was moved by the aforesaid defendants seeking registration of the Trust and ultimately, the Trust was registered on 06.09.1996. It is pleaded that various communications were exchanged with different authorities including the District Collector, Mamlatdar, Talati cum Mantri, Competent Officer (ULC) and the Charity Commissioner with regard to the objections being invited as regards vesting of the aforesaid suit lands as Trust property. It was, therefore, pleaded that after following the due process of law, the learned Charity Commissioner had passed order dated 06.09.1996 accepting the registration of the Trust and the certificate to that effect was also issued in the name of the plaintiff- Trust.

2.4. In spite of the aforesaid fact, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Vadodara Rural- original defendant no.4 had initiated proceedings almost after lapse of 19 years from the date of registration of the Trust and the vesting of the suit lands under Section 84(c) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. It was further pleaded that pursuant to the trust deed dated 17.08.1995 and the registration of Trust, a mutation entry no. 876 dated 07.08.1998 has also been given effect in the revenue record. The plaintiff has, therefore, pleaded to be in possession of the suit lands since then and the aforesaid suit lands were used for the purpose of various religious, spiritual, social and educational activities. It was further pleaded that in fact, construction has also been carried out on the suit lands from the funds collected from the devotees.

2.5. By pleading the aforesaid facts, it is contended by the plaintiff that the defendant nos.1 to 3 have no interest in the suit lands since year-1995 and only because of rise in the value of the suit lands, the defendant nos.1 to 3 had tried to take over the possession of the disputed lands.

2.6. The cause of action has, therefore, arisen for the plaintiff to approach the court of learned Civil Judge, when on 29.08.2018, the defendant nos.1 to 3 had administered threat. The suit was, therefore, filed by the plaintiff for declaration and for permanent injunction against the original defendants and the same was presented on 03.10.2018.

2.7. By pleading the aforesaid facts, the plaintiff has raised the cause of action by c