Gujarat High Court Quashes Collector's Order Cancelling Sale of Vidi Lands Under Saurashtra Estate Acquisition Act, 1952 — Holds That Collector's Suo Motu Power Under Section 37(2) of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 Is Barred by Limitation After 12 Years and Petitioners Have Acquired Title by Adverse Possession.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 115
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Dhadhal Devendra Jivabhai and another, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Court challenging two communications/orders dated 17.11.2023 and 31.07.2024 issued by the Collector, Rajkot. The dispute pertains to agricultural lands bearing Survey No.701/1 (5067 sq mtr), Survey No.701/2 (5068 sq mtr), and Survey No.888 (6041 sq mtr) situated in Village Shapar, Taluka Kotda Sangani, District Rajkot. These lands are classified as 'Vidi lands' under Section 2(a) of the Saurashtra Estate Acquisition Act, 1952, which were originally reserved for grazing cattle or cutting grass by a Girasdar or Birkhalidar as on 17.04.1951. The petitioners purchased these lands by a registered sale deed dated 10.02.2006 and have been in possession since then. The Collector, by the impugned communications, cancelled the mutation entries and directed eviction of the petitioners, purportedly on the ground that the lands were Vidi lands and could not have been sold. The petitioners contended that the Collector's action was barred by limitation under Section 37(2) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which provides that no suo motu power can be exercised after 12 years from the date of the transaction. They also argued that they had perfected their title by adverse possession. The State opposed the petition, but the Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Collector's power under Section 37(2) must be exercised within a reasonable period, and 12 years is the prescribed limitation. Since the sale deed was executed in 2006 and the impugned communications were issued in 2023 and 2024, the action was clearly barred by limitation. The Court also noted that the petitioners had been in possession for over 12 years and had thus acquired title by adverse possession. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned communications and directed the respondents to maintain status quo in respect of the lands in question. The petition was allowed.

Headnote

A) Land Law - Vidi Lands - Saurashtra Estate Acquisition Act, 1952, Section 2(a) - The lands in question are Vidi lands as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act, which were reserved for grazing cattle or cutting grass by a Girasdar or Birkhalidar as on 17.04.1951. The petitioners purchased these lands by registered sale deed dated 10.02.2006. The Collector issued impugned communications dated 17.11.2023 and 31.07.2024 cancelling the mutation entries and ordering eviction. The Court held that the Collector's action was barred by limitation under Section 37(2) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, as the sale had taken place more than 12 years prior. (Paras 2.1-2.2, 4.1-4.2)

B) Limitation - Suo Motu Power of Collector - Section 37(2) Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 - The Collector cannot exercise suo motu power to cancel mutation entries after a period of 12 years from the date of the transaction. The Court relied on the principle that the power under Section 37(2) must be exercised within a reasonable period, and 12 years is the prescribed limitation. The impugned communications were issued in 2023 and 2024, whereas the sale deed was executed in 2006, well beyond the limitation period. (Paras 4.1-4.2)

C) Adverse Possession - Title by Possession - The petitioners have been in possession of the lands since 2006, i.e., for over 12 years, and have thus perfected their title by adverse possession. The Court noted that the State's right to reclaim the lands is extinguished by the lapse of time. (Para 4.2)

D) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The High Court can interfere with orders passed by the Collector that are without jurisdiction or barred by limitation. The Court quashed the impugned communications and directed the respondents to maintain status quo in respect of the lands in question. (Paras 1, 5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Collector has the power to suo motu cancel mutation entries and order eviction in respect of Vidi lands after a period of 12 years from the date of sale, and whether the petitioners have acquired title by adverse possession.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The impugned communications/orders dated 17.11.2023 and 31.07.2024 issued by the Collector, Rajkot are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the lands in question.

Law Points

  • Vidi lands under Saurashtra Estate Acquisition Act
  • 1952
  • Section 2(a)
  • Section 37(2) Gujarat Land Revenue Code
  • 1879
  • adverse possession
  • limitation period
  • Collector's suo motu power
  • mutation entry
  • Article 226 Constitution of India
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 346

R/Special Civil Application No. 13806 of 2024

2026-03-30

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

Mr. Arshad Shaikh, Mr. S.P. Majmudar, Mr. Jayneel Parikh

Dhadhal Devendra Jivabhai & Anr.

The State of Gujarat & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging communications/orders of the Collector cancelling mutation entries and ordering eviction in respect of agricultural lands classified as Vidi lands.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of impugned communications dated 17.11.2023 and 31.07.2024 issued by the Collector, Rajkot, and direction to maintain status quo.

Filing Reason

The petitioners purchased the lands by registered sale deed dated 10.02.2006 and were in possession. The Collector issued communications cancelling mutation entries and ordering eviction, which the petitioners challenged as being barred by limitation and without jurisdiction.

Issues

Whether the Collector has the power to suo motu cancel mutation entries and order eviction in respect of Vidi lands after a period of 12 years from the date of sale? Whether the petitioners have acquired title by adverse possession?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners: The impugned communications are barred by limitation under Section 37(2) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, as the sale deed was executed in 2006 and the communications were issued in 2023 and 2024. The petitioners have been in possession for over 12 years and have perfected title by adverse possession. Respondents: Not explicitly stated in the judgment text.

Ratio Decidendi

The Collector's suo motu power under Section 37(2) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 to cancel mutation entries must be exercised within a reasonable period, and 12 years is the prescribed limitation. Since the sale deed was executed in 2006 and the impugned communications were issued in 2023 and 2024, the action is barred by limitation. Further, the petitioners have been in possession for over 12 years and have thus acquired title by adverse possession.

Judgment Excerpts

The Collector cannot exercise suo motu power to cancel mutation entries after a period of 12 years from the date of the transaction. The petitioners have been in possession of the lands since 2006, i.e., for over 12 years, and have thus perfected their title by adverse possession.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad challenging the communications/orders dated 17.11.2023 and 31.07.2024 issued by the Collector, Rajkot. The petition was heard on 30.03.2026 and allowed.

Acts & Sections

  • Saurashtra Estate Acquisition Act, 1952: Section 2(a)
  • Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879: Section 37(2)
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Father's Appeal for Custody of Minor Children in Guardianship Dispute. Welfare of Minor Children is Paramount Consideration Under Section 7 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Second Appeal in Suit for Permanent Injunction — Lower Appellate Court's Finding of Easement by Prescription Set Aside as Perverse. The plaintiff failed to prove continuous user for 20 years as required under Section ...