Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of two sets of civil appeals arising from interim orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad concerning the same agricultural land located in Sanathal village, Sanand Taluka, Ahmedabad District. The dispute originated from memoranda of understanding dated 30.10.2013 and 15.04.2015 entered into by the legal heirs of Hirabai Desai with respondent nos.2 and 3, leading to a consent decree for specific performance passed on 06.05.2016 by the Bombay High Court. A court receiver was appointed on the same day, and execution proceedings were initiated by respondent nos.2 and 3 through E.A.(L) No.5258 of 2021. The appellants, claiming agricultural tenancy rights, objected to the delivery of vacant possession and sought recall of an order dated 11.03.2022 that allowed such delivery. The Bombay High Court Single Judge refused interim protection on 04.04.2022, and the Division Bench dismissed the appellants' appeal and disposed of their interim application by order dated 28.06.2022. In parallel proceedings before the Gujarat High Court, the appellants claimed to have been declared protected tenants under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 on 03.06.2024. Respondent nos.2 and 3 challenged this claim through Special Civil Application Nos.9081 and 10167 of 2024. The Gujarat High Court Single Judge passed an interim order on 16.10.2024 maintaining status quo and permitting the appellants to reap standing crops. The Division Bench dismissed the appellants' letters patent appeals on 24.12.2024. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the Bombay High Court Division Bench exceeded its appellate jurisdiction by deciding the interim application itself, and that the Gujarat High Court's interim orders were improper because the appellants' possession was protected by the 03.06.2024 order. The respondents contended that the objection to the 12.04.2022 order was academic due to the filing of Civil Suit No.724 of 2025 by the appellants, and that the orders were correct and tenable. The Supreme Court, without going into merits, held that the Bombay High Court's order dated 28.06.2022 traversed beyond the scope of Appeal (L) No.12396 of 2022 and set aside findings in paragraphs 8 to 11 of that order, restoring I.A. No.(L)10443 of 2022 for fresh disposal. Regarding the Gujarat High Court appeals, the Court found a scramble for possession and modified the interim orders by requesting the learned Single Judge to appoint an Advocate Receiver with stipulated fee for administration and supervision of the subject land, subject to the final outcome of Special Civil Application Nos.9081 and 10167 of 2024. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appellate Review - Scope of Appeal - Not mentioned - The impugned order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court traversed beyond the scope of Appeal (L) No.12396 of 2022 by returning findings on the merits of the interim application and disposing of I.A.(L) No.10443 of 2022 itself - The Supreme Court set aside findings in paragraphs 8 to 11 of the order dated 28.06.2022 and restored the interim application for fresh consideration in accordance with law - Held that an appellate court should confine itself to the subject matter of the appeal before it (Paras 15).
B) Interim Measure - Appointment of Advocate Receiver - Administration and Supervision of Property - Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Section 32G - In the Civil Appeals arising from Gujarat High Court, there was a scramble for possession and divergent views regarding the appellants' claim to protected tenancy under Section 32G - The Supreme Court modified the orders dated 16.10.2024 of the Single Judge and Division Bench by requesting the learned Single Judge to appoint an Advocate Receiver with stipulated fee to administer and supervise the subject land pending final outcome of Special Civil Application Nos.9081 and 10167 of 2024 - Held that the appointment of receiver would inure to the benefit of the successful parties and was subject to the final outcome of those applications (Paras 9,16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Division Bench of Bombay High Court erred in dismissing the appeal and disposing of the interim application by traversing beyond the scope of Appeal (L) No.12396 of 2022; whether the Gujarat High Court orders directing status quo and permitting harvesting of crops were correct, and whether an Advocate Receiver should be appointed pending disposal of the Special Civil Applications
Final Decision
Civil Appeals disposed of. The impugned order dated 28.06.2022 of the Bombay High Court was set aside to the limited extent of findings in paragraphs 8 to 11; I.A. No.(L)10443 of 2022 was restored to the file for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The impugned orders dated 16.10.2024 of the Gujarat High Court Single Judge and Division Bench in L.P.A. Nos.1722 and 1749 of 2024 were modified; the learned Single Judge was requested to appoint and stipulate the fee payable to an Advocate Receiver for administration and supervision of the subject land. The appointment of the Advocate Receiver was subject to the final outcome of Special Civil Application Nos.9081 and 10167 of 2024 and would inure to the benefit of the successful parties. Pending applications stood disposed of.
Law Points
- Appellate court should not traverse beyond the scope of the appeal before it
- interim orders in execution proceedings should be considered on their own merits
- where there is a scramble for possession and divergent claims
- appointment of an Advocate Receiver is an appropriate interim measure
- claims of protected tenancy under Section 32G of Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948 to be decided by the competent High Court
Case Details
2026 LawText (SC) (08) 91
Civil Appeal No(s). 10586-10588 of 2026 and Civil Appeal No(s). 10667-10668 of 2026
S.V.N. Bhatti, N.V. Anjaria
Parbatsinh Dolatsang Dodiya and Others
Rameshbhai Harjibhai Makwana and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against interim orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in execution proceedings and writ petitions concerning agricultural land.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought setting aside of the Bombay High Court order dated 28.06.2022 and restoration of their interim application, and modification of the Gujarat High Court interim orders to protect their possession; they also sought appointment of an Advocate Receiver for administration of the subject land.
Filing Reason
Aggrieved by the Bombay High Court Division Bench dismissing their appeal and disposing of their interim application regarding recall of a delivery of possession order, and by the Gujarat High Court orders maintaining status quo and permitting harvesting of crops despite claimed protected tenancy.
Previous Decisions
Bombay High Court Single Judge refused interim protection on 04.04.2022; Division Bench dismissed Appeal (L) No.12396 of 2022 and disposed of I.A.(L) No.10443 of 2022 by order dated 28.06.2022; Gujarat High Court Single Judge passed interim arrangement on 16.10.2024 including permission to reap standing crops; Division Bench dismissed LPAs Nos.1722 and 1749 of 2024 on 24.12.2024.
Issues
Whether the Division Bench of Bombay High Court traversed beyond the scope of Appeal (L) No.12396 of 2022 by disposing of the interim application and making findings on its merits.
Whether the Gujarat High Court interim orders maintaining status quo and permitting harvesting of crops were correct, and whether an Advocate Receiver should be appointed pending final outcome of the Special Civil Applications.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants contended that the scope of Appeal (L) No.12396 of 2022 and the main prayer in I.A.(L) No.10443 of 2022 could not have been taken up by the Division Bench, and that as objectors they should be allowed to participate in the inquiry and canvass all objections.
Appellants argued that their possession was protected by the order dated 03.06.2024 declaring them as protected tenants under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy Act, and that granting status quo while permitting harvesting of crops was illegal.
Respondents contended that the objection against the order dated 12.04.2022 was substantially academic due to the filing of Civil Suit No.724 of 2025 by the appellants.
Respondents argued that the possession claimed by the appellants was contrary to the delivery proceedings initiated by the Court Receiver in E.A.(L) No.5258 of 2021, and that the High Court orders were correct and tenable.
Ratio Decidendi
An appellate court must confine itself to the subject matter of the appeal before it and cannot traverse beyond to decide the underlying application on merits. Where there is a scramble for possession and divergent claims, maintenance of status quo shall be coupled with appointment of a receiver for administration and supervision of the property to preserve the subject matter pending final adjudication. Claims of protected tenancy under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 are to be decided by the competent High Court in pending writ proceedings.
Judgment Excerpts
the impugned Order dated 28.06.2022 has traversed beyond the scope of the subject matter of the Appeal (L) No. 12396 of 2022. Therefore, to the said limited extent, we set aside the findings in Paragraphs 8 to 11 of the Order dated 28.06.2022 and restore I.A. No. (L) 10443 of 2022 to the file, and the Application is heard and disposed of in accordance with Law.
we request the learned Single Judge to appoint and also stipulate the fee payable to the Advocate Receiver for the purpose of administration and supervision of the subject matter of the Civil Appeals. The appointment of Advocate Receiver is subject to the final outcome of the Special Civil Application Nos. 9081 and 10167 of 2024 and would inure to the benefit of the successful parties.
The Appellants, as guarantors, will participate in the inquiry and canvass all the objections available in Law for working out the prayer in I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022.
Procedural History
On 30.10.2013 and 15.04.2015, the legal heirs of Hirabai Desai entered into a MoU and supplementary MoU regarding the subject agricultural land. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed Suit No.955 of 2015 for specific performance. On 06.05.2016, the Bombay High Court passed a consent decree for specific performance and appointed a Court Receiver; police assistance was given on 24.01.2018. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed E.A.(L) No.5258 of 2021 to enforce the decree. On 11.03.2022, the executing court allowed I.A.(L) No.20980 of 2021 directing delivery of vacant possession. The appellants filed I.A.(L) No.10443 of 2022 to recall that order. The Bombay High Court Single Judge refused interim protection on 04.04.2022, and the Division Bench dismissed Appeal (L) No.12396 of 2022 and disposed of I.A.(L) No.10443 of 2022 by order dated 28.06.2022. In parallel, on 03.06.2024, the appellants claimed protected tenancy under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 challenged this through Special Civil Application Nos.9081 and 10167 of 2024 before the Gujarat High Court. The Single Judge passed an interim order on 16.10.2024 maintaining status quo and permitting harvesting of standing crops. The Division Bench dismissed the appellants' LPAs Nos.1722 and 1749 of 2024 on 24.12.2024. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by setting aside the Bombay High Court's beyond-scope findings and modifying the Gujarat High Court's interim orders with appointment of an Advocate Receiver.
Acts & Sections
- Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: 32G
