An agreement to sell agricultural land without prior permission from the Collector is void and unenforceable under tenancy laws.

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 (hereinafter referred to the as the “Code”) being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat below Exhs. 17 & 18 in Special Civil Suit No.164 of 2023. By the said impugned order, the learned Judge has allowed the application preferred by the present respondent nos. 6 & 7 as well as application at Exh.178 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code essentially on the ground that the suit was barred by law under Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “Tenancy Act”) and under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act . Hence, by the impugned order, the learned Judge has rejected the plaint of Special Civil Suit No.164 of 2023.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, the facts as pleaded by the original plaintiff- appellant herein are reproduced herein under:

2.1. The dispute pertains to agricultural land bearing revenue survey no.520 block no.462 admeasuring hectare 0- 77-90 sq mtrs of village Pal, Tal: Choriyasi (presently Adajan), Dist. Surat (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”). The aforesaid suit land belonged to the ownership of the Kamnath Mahadev Temple Trust and it was running in the name of its administrator -Chunilal Nanchand. The said administrator expired on 15.6.1950 and the Managing Committee of the trust by Resolution dated 13.09.1950 and pursuant to the order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 17.01.1951 had entered the names of Govanbhai Ranchodji and Karshanji Narotambhai Patel as its administrator.

2.2. In the second column of the revenue record, name of one Lallubhai Nathubhai @ Naranbhai appeared in the year 1955- 56 as tenant. The said tenant had expired on 13.04.1964, whereby, name of his heirs and legal representatives – Diwaliben wd/o Lallubhai Nathubhai, Babarbhai Lallubhai, Ambaben Lallubhai, Jekishanbhai Lallubhai, Kamuben Lallubha, Jinabhai Lallubhai and Benaben Lallubhai names were entered as tenant. The proceedings under Tenancy Act were conducted by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Songadh and by order dated 6.9.1971 passed in Tenancy Case No.63 of 1971 had declared the aforesaid heirs of deceased tenant Lallubhai Nathubhai to be the lawful owners and occupants which was recorded in the revenue record vide mutation entry no.3567 dated 18.08.1973 and certified on 23.04.1974. On the demise of the wife of the original tenant Diwaliben who expired on 21.07.1965, her name was deleted from the revenue record, which fact is recorded in revenue record vide mutation entry no.4153 dated 10.02.1990, certified on 1.11.1990.

2.3. By referring to the aforesaid facts, original plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant no.1 – Benaben d/o Lallubhai Nathubhai had derived 1/6th share in the suit land in her capacity as co-owner of the suit land. She had right to manage her part of share and had accordingly agreed to sale the aforesaid part of the suit land to the original plaintiff. The consideration amount was agreed towards which Bana amount of Rs.5 lakhs was paid by the original plaintiff to the defendant no.1. The terms and conditions of the agreement were reduced in writing by executing agreement to sell dated 22.08.2008 by defendant no.1 in favour of the original plaintiff acknowledging the fact of defendants having received Bana amount of Rs.5 lakhs. The said document was executed before the notary which was also entered in the register of notary vide entry no.4511 of 2008 dated 22.08.2008. It is further pleaded that the receipt was also issued by the defendant no.1 as against the Bana amount. The defendant