Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.
Chhaganbhai Geriyabhai Gamit – Petitioner
Versus
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal And Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 1456 Of 2017, R/Special Civil Application No. 1455 Of 2017
Decided On : 09-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For The Petitioner: Mr Nv Gandhi
For The Respondent: Mr. Siddharth J. Desai, Agp, Mr Digant M Popat, Mr.Mrudul M Barot

The burden of proof to establish tenancy status lies strictly with the claimant. Without providing reliable, independent evidence and when faced with concurrent findings by lower authorities regarding the professional nature of the land-occupier's relationship, the court will not interfere in factual determinations.

Headnote:(A) Agriculture Tenancy Law - Provisions regarding declaration of tenancy status - Scope of evidence required to establish tenancy - Burden of proof rests upon the person claiming tenancy status - Requirement of cogent, convincing, and reliable evidence to demonstrate continuous cultivation in capacity of a tenant. (Paras 10, 11)

(B) Evidentiary Scrutiny - When documentary evidence is contested as being self-created after the initiation of litigation, the authority is empowered to discard such evidence - Appellate or Revisional Courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is perversity or illegality apparent on the record. (Paras 12, 13, 15)

(C) Exclusion of Tenancy Provisions - Land used for commercial activities, such as cultivation of specific crops or fruit-bearing trees, may fall under exemption clauses of legislation governing tenancy, precluding application of standard tenancy protections. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:
A petitioner sought a declaration of tenancy rights over agricultural land, alleging continuous cultivation for over three decades. The revenue authorities rejected the claim, citing a lack of evidence and finding that the petitioner was merely an employee/manager associated with the land. The lower authorities also noted the land was used for commercial crop cultivation which excluded it from standard tenancy statutes.

Findings of Court:
The court concurred with the findings of the revenue authorities, noting that the petitioner failed to prove the existence of a tenancy agreement or continuous possession as a tenant. Evidence was found to be self-created or insufficient, while the respondents successfully demonstrated the petitioner's role as a salaried manager.

Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence provided was sufficient to establish a legally binding tenancy status and whether the land in question was subject to standard tenancy protections given its specific usage for commercial crop cultivation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower authorities, reasoning that the burden of proving tenancy status is on the petitioner. In the absence of reliable evidence and given the presence of evidence suggesting a different occupational arrangement, no interference with the lower findings is warranted.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual allegations regarding tenancy claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner asserts deemed tenancy status and challenges revenue authority evidence evaluation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. respondent argues land exclusion from tenancy act due to fruit cultivation/commercial nature. (Para 10 , 11)
4. court upholds concurrent findings; act inapplicable to lands used for specific commercial crops. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)

ORDER :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1) As the issue involved in both 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.1456 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.139 admeasuring 3-06-06 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.139, Survey No.150, admeasuring 3-06-06 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, the GRT proceeded with hearing of the revision application and ultimately dismissed the revision vide order da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADDIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.Chhaganbhai Geriyabhai Gamit – Petitioner VersusGujarat Revenue Tribunal And Ors. – Respondents R/Special Civil Application No. 1456 Of 2017, R/Special Civil Application No. 1455 Of 2017Decided On : 09-04-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.
Chhaganbhai Geriyabhai Gamit – Petitioner
Versus
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal And Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 1456 Of 2017, R/Special Civil Application No. 1455 Of 2017
Decided On : 09-04-2026