IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 144 of 2006 ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Versus BHRAMBHATT JAYDEEPSINH GHANSHYAMBHAI ==========================================================

Appearance:

MS. URVASHI PUROHIT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 MR DHAVAL M BAROT(2723) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 13/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. By an oral order dated 25.07.2007, the Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to admit the present Second Appeal on the following substantial questions of law:–

“1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower appellate Court has erred in not holding that the orders at Exhs. 54 & 55 made by the Mamlatdar were not legal and binding to the State Government ?

2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower appellate Court has erred in not holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred ?"

2. The present Second Appeal has been listed on several occasions; however, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has consistently remained absent when the matter was called out for hearing. On 10.12.2025, this Court passed the following order:–

“When the matter was called out for hearing, the learned advocate representing respondent No. 1 remained absent. One final opportunity is granted.

Stand over to 17.12.2025.”

3. On 11.02.2026, once again, learned advocate for respondent No.1 remained absent when the matter was called out. Even today, at the time of final hearing, none appears on behalf of respondent No.1. 3.1. In the aforesaid backdrop, and considering the repeated non- appearance on behalf of the respondent, this Second Appeal is taken up for final hearing. The facts of the case, as borne out from the record, may be briefly stated as under:–

4. The plaintiff, who is a practicing advocate by profession, asserts that he is also engaged in agricultural activities.

4.1. He has averred that government waste land bearing Survey No.1974 admeasuring 2 acres and 11 gunthas and Survey No.1975 admeasuring 2 acres and 14 gunthas (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”) has been in his possession since the year 1992–1993. According to him, the suit land was originally government waste and stony land, and he undertook efforts to clear and render it cultivable. Initially, Revenue Entry No.6094 came to be mutated in the revenue records reflecting the suit land as government land.

4.2. Subsequently, the State Government is stated to have allotted the suit land to one Makwana Ambalal and Rathod Devbhai for a period of one year for cultivation. Corresponding revenue entries bearing Serial Nos.6123 and 6124 were mutated in the revenue records. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said allottees, in turn, transferred possession of the suit land in or about the year 1985–86 to Rabari Ishwarbhai Nagjibhai and Rabari Bhagwanbhai Nagjibhai for the purpose of cultivation. Revenue entries were accordingly mutated in favour of the said Rabari cultivators.

4.3. It is further averred that, thereafter, the Mamlatdar, upon conducting proceedings under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, recorded a finding that the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the suit land and consequently directed mutation of the plaintiff’s name in the revenue records. The plaintiff asserts that he has since developed the suit land and constructed a residential structure thereon. However, at the time of institution of the suit, he apprehended that the defendant–State authorities might dispossess him without following due process of law. He, therefore, instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that he is in lawful possession of the suit land and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession otherwise than in accordance with law.

4.4. The State, upon being served, fil