SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Guj) 781

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.
Virendra Jashbhai Patel & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 9738 of 2021
Decided On : 06-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vandan K. Baxi, Mr. Sudhir Nanavati, Ld. Sr. Adv. for Nanavati & Nanavati.
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Desai, Ld Asst. Government Pleader.

The inclusion of land in a sanctioned town planning scheme fundamentally alters its character, rendering prior restrictions on agricultural use imposed under the tenancy act inapplicable, and allowing for non-agricultural conversion upon payment of applicable premiums.

Headnote:(A) Gujarat Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 43 - Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 41, 65, and 121 - Land use permission - Historical conditions in sale deed - Effect of Town Planning Scheme - Once a land parcel is included in a sanctioned town planning scheme, its character is deemed to have changed for development purposes, rendering previous restrictive conditions regarding agricultural land use inapplicable (Para 14).

(B) Administrative Law - Quasi-judicial orders - Requirement of speaking orders - Authorities rejected application by relying solely on a historical condition without addressing the impact of government resolutions and town planning developments, failing to provide reasoned, speaking orders (Para 12).

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought permission to convert their land for non-agricultural use. Their applications were rejected by local revenue authorities based on a specific restrictive condition imposed in a sale permission granted decades earlier, which prohibited non-agricultural activities. The petitioners argued that the land had since been incorporated into a sanctioned town planning scheme, changing its character from agricultural to residential, and that, per government resolution and established judicial precedents, no fresh permission should be required under the tenancy legislation.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the lower authorities erred by ignoring the impact of the town planning scheme and relevant government resolutions. The impugned orders were found to be non-speaking and failed to consider that the land's inclusion in an urban development scheme fundamentally altered its status, superseding restrictive clauses from historical land transfer records.

Issues: Whether historical restrictions on land use imposed during a sale under the tenancy act are enforceable after the land has been integrated into a sanctioned town planning scheme, and whether revenue authorities are justified in refusing non-agricultural use permission on such grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once land is included within a sanctioned town planning scheme and falls within a designated residential zone, it ceases to be categorized restricted agricultural land for development purposes. Consequently, historical restrictions under the relevant tenancy act do not survive, and the authorities must process conversion requests in light of the current regulatory framework and applicable premium payments.

Result: Application allowed. The impugned orders were quashed and set aside with directions to the authority to pass a fresh de novo order within eight weeks.

Table of Content
1. historical factual background of land dispute and administrative rejections. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' contentions regarding town planning scheme impact and section 43 restrictions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. judicial assessment of non-reasoned administrative orders and land classification. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. applicability of town planning scheme benefits to section 43 land restrictions. (Para 15)
5. order to re-evaluate the matter de novo based on established legal precedents. (Para 16)

ORDER :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Desai waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of State-Respondent.

2. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Vadodara, whereby the application of the writ applicants, seeking N.A. Permission has been rejected, as well as the order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the respondent No.2- District Collector, Vadodara, whereby the application of the writ applicants, seeking to release the restrictions under Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short ‘Act, 1948’), has been rejected.

3. Facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of the present application, may be summarized as under;

3.1 The dispute pertains to non-grant of Non-agriculture (for short ‘N.A.’) use permission with regard to the land situated at Survey No.175, admeasuring Acres 01-34 Gunthas at Mouje Village: Vasna Saiyed, Taluka & District: Vadodara (for short ‘land in question’), which is forming part and parcel of Vasna Town Planning Scheme No.14, originally belonged to one Jadav Savji Hirabhai, and the same was running as restricted new tenure land in the revenue record.

3.2 On 23.12.1967, the original owner made an application to the District Collector, seeking permission to sell the land in question to Jashbhai Shankar, Virendra Jashbhai and Jitendra Jashbhai, and the District Collector, vide its order dated 03.09.1968, granted permission to sell the land in question to the writ applicants subject to certain terms and conditions.

3.3 Thereafter, the land in question was purchased by the writ applicants vide registered sale deed dated 07.10.1968, and an entry being Entry No.552 also came to be mutated in the revenue record with regard to the aforesaid sale transaction, and the writ applicants are occupying the land in question since then.

3.4 Thereafter, the State Government, vide Government Resolution dated 20.05.1980, held that the land for which permission under Section 43 of the Act, 1948, is once granted, the present land owners are not required to obtain permission afresh and as and when they want to convert the land into non-agriculture use, the same can be done upon payment of applicable premium.

3.5 Thereafter, the draft Town Planning Scheme No.14 was sanctioned on 21.05.1984 by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Land Development Act, 1976. Thereafter, final town planning scheme was sanctioned by the State Government vide Notification dated 28.06.1995, and the land in question is given Final Plot No.154 and the same is in the residential Zone R-I.

3.6 Thereafter, the writ applicants were desirous of converting their land in question for N.A. use, and therefore, they made an application dated 16.01.2019 before the respondent No.2-District Collector, Vadodara. However, the respondent No.3-Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Vadodara, vide its order dated 18.02.2019, on the basis of the instructions of the District Collector, Vadodara, rejected the said application.

3.7 Thereafter, to avoid any controversy, the writ applicants, made an application dated 06.06.2019 showing their willingness to pay the premium as required for releasing the restrictions of Section 43 of the Act, 1948, howe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top