Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 70 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 78Nominal IndexBabubhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 70State of Gujarat v. Shabbirhusein Shekhadam Khandvawala & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 71Suleiman Ahmed Minty v. State of Gujarat & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 72Advance Greenfield Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Surendrakumar Netaram Sharma v. State...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 70 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 78
Nominal Index
Babubhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 70
State of Gujarat v. Shabbirhusein Shekhadam Khandvawala & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 71
Suleiman Ahmed Minty v. State of Gujarat & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 72
Advance Greenfield Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Surendrakumar Netaram Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 73
Dharmendra Vallabhbhai Ramani v. Jetpur Swaminarayan Trust & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 74
District Primary Education Officer & Anr. v. Sabihaben Ayubhbai Vora 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 75
Pirzada Saiyed Bahauddin B. Kadri (since deceased through heirs) and others v. State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 76
Mukeshbhai Gorchandbhai Chamka v State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 77
Koli Parshottambhai Narsinhbhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat Through Secretary (Appeals) & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 78
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Babubhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 70
The Gujarat High Court has held that when rights in land are acquired through a registered document under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, the revenue authorities are duty-bound to mutate the entry.
In doing so the court said that the refusal to restore such entry despite subsequent consent of parties and rectification of defects is “not legally sustainable.”
Justice Divyesh A. Joshi referred to Section 135(C) of Gujarat Land Revenue Code which states that when a person acquires a right on any land via succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease etc., he shall make a report of acquisition of such right to the designated officer within three months from the date of such acquisition, and the said designated officer shall at once, give a written acknowledgment of the receipt.
Case Title: State of Gujarat v. Shabbirhusein Shekhadam Khandvawala & Ors
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 71
The Gujarat High Court acquitted a police officer convicted by trial court in 2003 in a custodial torture and illegal confinement FIR lodged in 1976, holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the complainant was tortured wherein the allegations were not supported by reliable medical or corroborative evidence.
Justice Gita Gopi observed:
“The prosecution had failed to prove the case of police custodial torture of the complainant. The injuries are not proved as of police custody beating. Even the date of custody is not proved. The complainant had failed to invoke his right to make complaint of injuries by police as an accused when [he] was arrested and produced before the Magistrate in [the] case under the Arms Act… The judgment [of the Trial Court], thus, becomes erroneous and fails in merits and is required to be set aside. Since there is no case for conviction, there would be no ground for the plea of enhancement of the sentence.”
Case Title: Suleiman Ahmed Minty v. State of Gujarat & Ors
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 72
The Gujarat High Court has held that revenue entries obtained by suppressing material facts and playing fraud cannot confer legal rights, reiterating that any order secured by fraud is a “nullity and non est in the eye of law.”
In doing so the court observed that challenge to a 29-year-old mutation entry would not be barred by limitation as limitation was applicable only from the date of knowledge of the fraud, and not from the date of the fraud itself.
Case Title: Advance Greenfield Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Surendrakumar Netaram Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 73
The Gujarat High Court has held that the Collector cannot reject an application for grant of land use certificate under Section 63AA of State Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act on technical deficiencies.
For context, Section 63AA of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 enables a person to buy agricultural land provided that it is to be used for bona-fide industrial purposes.
Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the Collector's order rejecting the petitioner's application reflected “overstepping of jurisdiction” and lacked application of mind; it also permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application for consideration in accordance with law.
Case Title: Dharmendra Vallabhbhai Ramani v. Jetpur Swaminarayan Trust & Anr.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 74
Holding that tenants cannot invoke Section 11(3) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act for fixation of standard rent in respect of premises constructed after the 2001 amendment, the Gujarat High Court dismissed a batch of appeals filed by tenants of Jetpur Swaminarayan Trust.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice J.C. Doshi observed:
“… it becomes abundantly clear that when the appellants instituted an application under Section 11(3) of the Rent Act seeking fixation of standard rent, the very provisions of the Rent Act had ceased to apply to the premises in question. The statutory remedy invoked was, therefore, not available to the appellants in law. The institution of such proceedings, in the absence of a subsisting statutory foundation, amounts to a misconceived invocation of jurisdiction, resulting in an exercise in futility and an unwarranted consumption of judicial time, making it an abuse of process of law. Thus, from all counts makes standard rent application as irreparable suit, which discerned to be nipped at threshold.”
Case Title: District Primary Education Officer & Anr. v. Sabihaben Ayubhbai Vora
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 75
Holding that civil court cannot reassess interview marks or direct appointment to a public post, the Gujarat High Court quashed concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court which had directed appointment of a primary school teacher nearly 11 years after the declaration of merit list.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice J.C. Doshi observed:
“If we peruse paragraph Nos. 12 to 17 of the Trial Court's judgment, it reveals that the learned Trial Court assumed the role and character of the Interview Committee and decided that interview committee committed serious error in not granting two more marks to the plaintiff. It is surprising that, in absence of any specific pleadings challenging the interview process, learned Trial Court undertook such exercise and granted two additional marks to the plaintiff on the ground that she possessed knowledge of special subjects. In fact it seems that learned Civil Court has assumed the character and dramatis personae of the interview committee. Unfortunately, said error which ought to have been rectified by the learned first appellate Court, failed to correct the same by allowing appeal, rather dismissed the Regular Civil Appeal and confirmed the judgment of learned Trial Court.”
Case Title: Pirzada Saiyed Bahauddin B. Kadri (since deceased through heirs) and others v. State of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 76
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking the State government be restrained from interfering with a party's burial activities near a protected monument in Vadodara, holding that the party had failed to establish any customary or legal right over the site.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice J.C. Doshi observed that the plaintiff had neither proved his alleged status as a religious head nor established any customary right permitting burial activities within the protected monument area.
Case Title: Mukeshbhai Gorchandbhai Chamka v State of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 77
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of a man found guilty of rape and murder of a minor girl in Dahod district in 2013, holding that the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing to the accused's guilt.
A Division Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R.T. Vachhani dismissed the appeal filed by Mukeshbhai Gorchandbhai Chamka challenging a 2014 judgment of the Sessions Court which had convicted him under Sections 376 (rape) and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Koli Parshottambhai Narsinhbhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat Through Secretary (Appeals) & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 78
The Gujarat High Court quashed orders of revenue authorities vesting agricultural land in the State, holding that initiation of suo motu proceedings after an unexplained delay of 11 years was arbitrary and beyond the scope of the powers under the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
Justice Divyesh A. Joshi observed that the revenue authorities had exercised powers in a manner contrary to settled legal principles governing delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Quoting Supreme Court's ruling in Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur (1992), the Court noted the law as under,
“… delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law… even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay may have led to creation of third-party rights that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of discretionary power, especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight.”