The Supreme Court has held that the Bombay High Court travelled beyond the scope of the appeal before it while dealing with a dispute concerning approximately 18 acres and 10 gunthas of agricultural land in Ahmedabad district and set aside the relevant findings of the Bombay High Court and restored the pending interim application for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
The bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria has observed that there was a “scramble for possession” and that divergent claims had been advanced by both sides. In these circumstances, the Court considered the possibility of appointing an Advocate Receiver to administer the disputed property while the substantive proceedings remain pending before the Gujarat High Court.
Buy Now: JurisHour Ultimate Legal Research Combo – 4 Premium E-Magazines at an Unbeatable Price
The appeals arose from proceedings concerning land bearing Block Nos. 850P, 853 and 859P, corresponding to earlier Survey Nos. 743, 744, 745, 747 and 733. The property comprises approximately 18 acres and 10 gunthas of agricultural land situated in Sanathal village, Sanand Taluka, Ahmedabad District. The same subject matter was involved in proceedings before both the Bombay High Court and the Gujarat High Court.
The dispute traces back to Memoranda of Understanding executed on October 30, 2013 and April 15, 2015 by the legal heirs of Hirabai Desai concerning transfer of the property in favour of certain respondents. The respondents subsequently instituted Suit No. 955 of 2015 seeking specific performance of the MoUs. A consent decree for specific performance was passed by the Bombay High Court on May 6, 2016.
Following the decree, execution proceedings were initiated. A Court Receiver had been appointed in connection with an earlier decree dated February 15, 1956 in Suit No. 1269 of 1951. During the subsequent proceedings, the respondents sought delivery of vacant possession of the disputed property.
On March 11, 2022, the relevant interim application was allowed and a direction was issued for delivery of vacant possession. The appellants thereafter sought recall of that order through an interim application.
The Bombay High Court Division Bench subsequently dismissed the appeal filed against the Single Judge’s order and also dealt with the pending interim application. Among other findings, the Division Bench held that the appellants’ application was premised on an incorrect assumption regarding the appointment of the Court Receiver. It observed that the Receiver had originally been appointed pursuant to the 1956 decree and that the later 2015 decree did not appoint a Receiver specifically for the three disputed parcels, but continued the existing arrangement.
The Supreme Court, however, found that the Bombay High Court had exceeded the scope of the appeal before it.
The Supreme Court set aside, to that limited extent, the findings recorded in paragraphs 8 to 11 of the Bombay High Court’s order. It directed that I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022 be restored to the file and heard and disposed of afresh in accordance with law.
The ruling therefore does not finally determine the competing substantive claims over the property. Instead, it ensures that the pending application is considered within the proper procedural and appellate framework.
The second set of appeals concerned proceedings before the Gujarat High Court relating to the appellants’ claim of protected tenancy.
The appellants claimed that they had been declared “protected tenants” on June 3, 2024 under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The respondents challenged the relevant proceedings by filing Special Civil Application Nos. 9081 of 2024 and 10167 of 2024 before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad.
On October 16, 2024, the Gujarat High Court’s Single Judge made an interim arrangement, including permitting the appellants to reap standing crops, if any, on the disputed property. The appellants thereafter approached the Division Bench through Letters Patent Appeals. Those appeals were dismissed on December 24, 2024, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court therefore modified the impugned orders dated October 16, 2024 passed by the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court.
It requested the learned Single Judge to appoint an Advocate Receiver and stipulate the fee payable to the Receiver for administration and supervision of the property. Importantly, the Court made the appointment subject to the final outcome of Special Civil Application Nos. 9081 and 10167 of 2024. The benefit of the arrangement would ultimately accrue to whichever party succeeds in the substantive proceedings.
The Supreme Court consciously refrained from adjudicating the merits of the competing claims. The judgment records that several substantive contentions had been advanced by the senior counsel appearing for the parties, but the Court did not enter into those issues because the relevant interim application and the Special Civil Applications remained pending before the respective High Courts.
The Court also recorded arguments concerning the appellants’ proposed participation in the inquiry and their entitlement to raise objections available in law. On the Gujarat side, competing arguments were advanced regarding protection of possession and the effect of the interim orders.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: Kolkata Customs Seizes USD 1.30 Lakh from 2 Indian Passengers at NSCBI Airport
