Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8413

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Divyesh A. JOSHI, J
Chhaganbhai Geriyabhai Gamit – Appellant
Versus
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1104 of 2017|R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1105 of 2017|R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1106 of 2017|R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1107 of 2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N. V. Gandhi
For the Respondents: Jay Trivedi, Digant M. Popat

A claimant seeking recognition as a tenant bears the burden of establishing their status through cogent evidence. Statutory protections under tenancy law remain inapplicable to lands used for specific commercial or industrial cultivation such as fruit growing or cash crops, as defined by governing legislative exemptions.

Headnote:(A) Tenancy Law - Burden of proof - Party claiming status as tenant must produce credible and corroborative documentation to substantiate continuous cultivation as a tenant - Failure to do so, coupled with evidence indicating an employment relationship, justifies the rejection of such claims by the competent revenue authority. (Paras 10, 11, 13)

(B) Statutory Exemptions - Agricultural lands - Regulations governing tenancy do not extend to lands dedicated to commercial or industrial cultivation, including fruit orchards or specific cash crops - Where the nature of the land falls under such an exemption, the protections afforded by the legislation are inapplicable to the occupant. (Paras 10, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a judicial declaration of tenancy status, claiming to have continuously cultivated the land for over three decades. The opposing parties maintained that the petitioner was an employee engaged as a manager for a monthly salary. The primary revenue authority rejected the application, citing a complete lack of corroborating evidence and the fact that the occupant had failed to provide legitimate documentation, instead attempting to rely on documents that appeared to be created solely to facilitate the current litigation.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower authorities, observing that the petitioner failed to establish the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship through reliable evidence. Furthermore, the court noted that the land in question is utilized for activities that fall under the statutory exemption of the relevant legislative act, effectively excluding such land from the tenancy protections claimed by the petitioner.

Issues: The main issues were the claimant's ability to prove a tenancy relationship in the absence of valid corroborative evidence and the applicability of statutory exemptions regarding the nature of the land and its specific agricultural usage.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant seeking formal recognition as a tenant bears the burden of proof to establish that status through cogent and reliable evidence; where the nature of the land usage—such as industrial or commercial crop cultivation—falls under clear legislative exemptions, the protections and legal consequences provided by tenancy statutes do not attach to the land.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and consolidation of petitions under articles 226 and 227. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 9)
2. petitioner's burden to prove tenancy status despite lack of official record entries. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. respondent's argument regarding lack of evidence and statutory exemptions for fruit-bearing agricultural lands. (Para 10 , 11)
4. court evaluates credibility of claimant's evidence and assesses employment vs. tenancy status. (Para 12 , 13)
5. application of section 43-a exempting specific land types from tenancy act provisions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

COMMON ORDER

1. As the issue involved in all the petitions is identical and based upon the same set of facts and materials, they are being disposed of by this common order and the facts of Special Civil Application No.1104 of 2017 are taken in to consideration.

2. By way preferring present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for the following main relief:

“A) THIS HON’BLE COURT may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari, or any other writ or order or directions and be further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders at Annexure A/1 to A/3 respectively and be further pleased to allow the said Ganot/70-B/Case no.2/2005 by declaring and holding that, the petitioner is a tenant of subjected land bearing Block No.157 admeasuring 3-84-09 H-ARE-Sq. Mtrs. situated at Mouje: Kareli, Taluka: Palsana, District Surat.”

2.1. The petitioner is a tenant and continuously cultivating agricultural land bearing Block No.157, Survey No.151 and 153/2, admeasuring 3-84-09 H-Are Sq. Mtrs. situated at Mouje Village Kareli, Taluka: Palsana, District Surat (it shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘subject land’) since last more than 30 years without any interference and interruption. That, one of the relatives of respondent No.4 herein had come to India in October, 2004 and enticed the petitioner to handover the original revenue receipts and other revenue records pertaining to the subject land to him. As the value of the subject land is increasing at a skyrocket speed, with the help of anti-social elements, respondent No.4 wanted to get the possession of the land from the petitioner, which constrained the petitioner to file tenancy case before the Mamlatdar & ALT, Palsana under the provisions of Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (it shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘Act’ for short). However, the said application has been dismissed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Palsana by way of order dated 30.10.2009.

2.2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, petitioner herein has preferred appeals before the Deputy Collector, Bardoli. However, the said appeals have also been dismissed by the Deputy Collector vide common order dated 16.08.2010.

2.3. The said order of the Deputy Collector has been assailed before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (it shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘GRT’ for short) by way of preferring revision application. Along with the revision application, a separate application for injunction has also been preferred. The said application seeking injunction has been allowed by the GRT and notice came to be issued to the respondents herein. Being aggrieved by the said ex-parte order, the private respondents herein have made submissions before the GRT to vacate the said ex-parte injunction. However, the said request of the private respondents has been rejected by the GRT vide order dated 05.01.2012. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, respondents preferred writ petitions being Special Civil Application No.4652 and allied matters before this Court, which came to be disposed of by the this Court vide order dated 15.10.2013. While disposing of the writ petitions, the Court directed the GRT to decide the main revision application on or before 30.04.2014 and directed the parties to maintain status quo prevalent on the date 14.09.2010. Thereafter, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document