IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 41 of 2013 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4351 of 1990 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY ======================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

======================================

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Versus HARENDRRAKUMAR NATWARSINHJI PORBANDAR ======================================

Appearance:

MS MAITHILI MEHTA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3 MR DHAVAL DAVE, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR JIGAR P RAVAL(2008) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ======================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.

JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 17/12/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.

JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02 / 04.02.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Porbandar, namely respondent No.3 in Land Ceiling Revision Case No.1 of 1983 dated 30.03.1983 and the order dated 25.08.1989 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, namely respondent No.2 therein. A further direction has been given to the respondent authorities to consider / treat Natwar Baug Palace Complex held by the petitioner as being outside the purview of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act, 1960’).

2. We may note that before the writ court, three issues had been raised by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Deputy Collector, Porbandar and Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in holding that an area of 476.03 gunthas, out of 530.03 guntha, of the land in question was required to be declared surplus (as on 01.04.1976) and the owner was entitled to retain only 54.00 acres of the total land.

3. The arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner have been noted in paragraph 4.10 of the judgment impugned, which reads as under:-

“4.10 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner raised following contentions for the consideration of this Court:-

I. Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji (step-son) – petitioner is entitled to claim one separate ceiling unit.

II. Adopted-son Udaybansinhji, who expired before the specified date is also entitled to claim one separate unit. III. Land admeasuring 14 acres and 34 gunthas forming part of 'Gamtal' is not agricultural land and therefore, Ceiling Act does not apply to this land and therefore, this much land should be excluded from the holding of the land owner for the purpose of determining ceiling area.”

4. On the first issue, the findings returned by the learned Single Judge are in paragraph ‘6.1’, which reads as under:-

“6.1 So far as first contention, i.e. whether the petitioner – Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji (step-son) is entitled to claim one separate unit is concerned, learned Advocate for the petitioner rightly pointed out the definition of term, 'family' contained in Clause-16 of Section-2 of the Act. The said Clause-16 defines joint family to mean 'an undivided Hindu family and in the case of other persons a group or unit the members of which by custom or usage are joint in estate or residence'. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that if the legislature wanted the concept of 'Hindu Undivided Family' to be applicable to all, it would not have provided for the other persons, qua whom, it is specifically provided that, 'in the case of other persons a group or unit the members of which by custom or usage are joint in estate or residence'. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that there is ample evidence placed on record to show that right from the birth, till the sad demise of Maharana Shri, the petitioner was treated as son of Maharana Shri and if that is so, the petitioner has to be considered to be a member of 'joint fa