Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 298
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Divyesh A. Joshi, J.
Bhupatbhai Ranabhai Lathiya (Deceased) & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors.- Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 196 of 2018
Decided On : 23-06-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nishit P Gandhi
For the Respondent: Mr Aditya Pathak AGP
High Courts possess extensive remedial powers under writ jurisdiction to mould relief based on factual pleadings, even if the prayer is narrowly drafted. Substantive justice prevails over procedural technicalities, allowing the court to rectify revenue records when errors are bona fide and remanding would be futile.
Headnote:(A) Constitution - Articles 14, 16 and 226 - Land Revenue Rules - Rule 108(6) - Agricultural Land Ceiling Act - Revenue entries - Cancellation of entry - Writ of Mandamus - Scope and exercise of discretion in granting relief.
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope and Ambit - High Courts possess expansive remedial powers under Article 226 to mould relief based on pleadings and facts, ensuring that substantive justice is not defeated by technical procedural errors in prayer clauses (Paras 12, 13, 16).
(C) Bona fide mistakes - Revenue records - Discretion of court to rectify administrative records when the mistake is bona fide, and remanding the matter would serve no useful purpose and merely prolong litigation (Paras 20, 21).
Facts of the case:
The subject land was previously converted from restricted new tenure to old tenure. Subsequent to multiple property transfers, the latest revenue entry based on a sale deed was cancelled for lack of prior authorization. The petitioners challenged the rejection of their ex post facto regularization request, asserting their status as bonafide purchasers.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the cancellation of entries in such circumstances was unjustified and that the court possesses the constitutional authority to grant appropriate relief under its writ jurisdiction despite technical imperfections in the petition's prayer or the specific remedy initially requested.
Issues: Whether the court can exercise writ jurisdiction to satisfy justice when the petitioner sought the wrong legal remedy and whether the cancellation of the revenue entry based on the lack of prior permission was sustainable despite earlier certifications of transactions.
Ratio Decidendi: High courts are not confined to the formal prayer in a writ petition if the pleadings demonstrate clear illegality and equity demands the rectification of records to avoid hardship; the court must ensure justice regardless of procedural technicalities when the facts reveal an injustice.
Result: Petition allowed. The order cancelling the entry is quashed and set aside, and the entry based on the registered sale deed is restored.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the factual history and procedural origin of the land dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. conflicting stances on the legality of land sale and revenue entry requirements. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. defining the expansive remedial power of high courts under article 226. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. exercising equitable discretion to grant relief despite procedural lapses. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
Divyesh A. Joshi, J.
1. By filing present petition under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules and under the provision of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the impugned orders dated 15.06.2012 and 21.05.2015 passed by the respondent authorities and thereby prayed for regularization of their land.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under,
2.1 The land bearing Survey Nos.32/P8, 32/P9, 32/P10, 32/P11, 32/P124 and 32/P14 situated in Village : Mota Mansa, Taluka : Jafrabad, District : Amreli were originally belonging to one Varu Punjabhai Sidibhai and Laduben Punjabhai. Out of aforesaid survey numbers, land bearing Survey No.32/P was admeasuring 77 Acres.
2.2 However subsequently in connection with land bearing Survey No.32/P, the proceedings under the provision of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act was initiated, wherein land admeasuring 34.35 Acre was declared as excess land.
2.3 Aforesaid excess land admeasuring 34.35 Acre was given to 14 different persons on Santhani basis by an order dated 30.01.1963. Thereafter, those allottees had continuously carried out agricultural activities upon the said land. It is required to be noted that the aforesaid land was restricted tenure land.
2.4 Thereafter the aforesaid lands were converted into old tenure land by an order an order of the learned Additional Collector, Rajula and pursuant thereto, restriction over the said land was removed subject to payment of premium in case of non-agricultural purpose and accordingly, Entry Nos.914, 916, 917, 918, 919 & 920 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 15.09.2006.
2.5 Thereafter aforesaid land bearing Survey Nos.32/P8 to 32/P14 were purchased by one Dipakbhai Balabhai by way of executing registered sale deed on 07.11.2006 and based on it, Entry Nos.922 to 926 & 928 came to be mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, one Jayantibhai Madhavjibhai purchased land in question from the said Dipakbhai Balabhai by way of executing registered sale deed on 09.06.2010 and based on it, Entry No.1075 came to be mutated in the revenue record, which was certified on 14.09.2010.
2.6 Thereafter, the petitioners purchased the land in question from the said Jayantibhai Madhavjibhai by way of executing registered sale deed on 16.09.2011 and based on it, Entry No.1137 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 15.02.2012, however, the said entry was cancelled on 13.04.2012 on the ground that before purchase of the land, prior permission has not been obtained from the competent authority.
2.7 Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners submitted an application before the respondent – Collector for the grant of ex post facto permission of their sale transaction, however by an order dated 15.06.2012, the respondent – Collector rejected the said application.
2.8 Aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioners before the learned Special Secretary by filing Revision Application No.MVV/JMN/AML/36/2012, however, the said revision application came to be rejected by the learned Special Secretary by an order dated 21.05.2015.
3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Nishit Gandhi for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for the respondents.
4. Learned advocate, Mr. Gandhi for the petitioners referred to above stated facts and submitted that the petitioners are the bonafide purchasers of the land in question from the original land owner by way of executing reg
