Gujarat High Court Slams State For Wasting Public Funds By Filing Frivolous Plea In Private Dispute Between Heirs, Orders Inquiry

The Gujarat High Court on Thursday (December 11) dismissed State's appeal against a single judge's decision which had quashed orders passed by the revenue authorities refusing mutation of a land to a woman, which was based on consent decree between her and her brother passed by the civil court.

In doing so the court said that it was deeply disturbed by the State filing frivolous appeal by wasting public funds and judicial time in a case where the State had no interest in the land in question which was subject matter of a dispute between two heirs of a tenure holder.

Perusing the record, a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray in its order dictated:

"Moreover the dispute was decided by civil court between two heirs of original owner/recorded tenure holder of land in question on consent terms arrived between them. In this whole scenario where land was self acquired property of original owner, the State was never a necessary or even a proper party. Apart from above the civil court decree could not have been ignored or brushed aside on the premise that it was consent decree and not passed on legal merit. There is nothing on record which would indicate that state had any kind of interest in the land in question or agitated any interest before civil court by seeking recall of the consent decree. It is not a case where the transaction was made with respect to State land, or decree was passed with respect to land where State had any kind of interest".

The bench said that the orders passed by revenue authorities in refusing to comply with civil court decree, "are completely out of context". It said that it was satisfied with the decision of the single judge which had set aside the orders of the revenue authorities.

Directing an inquiry in the matter the court said:

"However the most surprising feature in the whole scenario, is that the State authorities had further proceeded to employ the public machinery of the office of the Law Secretary, Government Pleader and incur expenditure from public funds (state funds) to file a frivolous appeal in a matter where state had no kind of interest. We are deeply disturbed by this trend of filing of State appeal which not only incurs wasteful expenditure of public money but also adds to the humongous litigation in this court, resulting in wastage of judicial time. We are, therefore, of the opinion that an inquiry is required to be made in the manner in which decision was taken in filing of present appeal against order wherefrom State cannot be said to have been prejudiced and which has been passed to implement civil court decree".

The court directed the matter to be placed before Advocate General "who shall conduct an inquiry at his own ends and submit his response". The matter is listed for this purpose on January 15, 2026.

Background

The court was hearing an appeal by the State–Collector and Deputy Collector, Junagadh challenging single judge's 7-6-2023 order quashing orders passed by revenue authorities.

The court noted that there was an unexplained delay of 831 days in filing the appeal, adding that the explanation given by the State was casual. Noting that during the arguments certain "shocking facts" came to be transpired.

It noted that the petitioner is daughter of an agriculturalist who was the owner and occupier of the land in question. It was the case of the petitioner that the land had been purchased by her father by way of registered sale deed 21-1-1975 and it was mutated and certified in revenue record.

During his lifetime, the father transferred the land in favour of his son, which came to be mutated and the name of the son came to be entered in the revenue record. The petitioner being daughter of original owner filed a civil suit for declaration against her brother.

The suit ultimately culminated into a consent decree in 2001 which stated that brother shall give portion of the land which petitioner was entitled to, the name of the petitioner shall be mutated into the revenue record jointly with that of her brother and the land shall be in joint name of petitioner sister and the brother.

Mutation proceedings were conducted to record the petitioner's name. At this stage a refusal came from revenue authority vide order dated 21-6-2001 on the ground that petitioner was not an agriculturist and necessary permission was not obtained.

The decision of revenue authority was challenged by the petitioner before the deputy collector who rejected the same. The court noted that subsequent challenge before Collector had also been rejected. Subsequently the petitioner moved the high court.

Findings

"The most surprising and disturbing fact which is reflected from the record is that two revenue authorities namely the deputy collector and the collector had refused to comply with the civil court decree on the ground that the civil court decree is based on consent terms and not on legal merits and further that the government is not made a party to the civil suit. One more reasoning given for rejection of appeal and revision by deputy collector and collector is that original owner had himself lost status of agriculturist in 1981. But there is complete silence about the transfer made by original owner in favour of his son in 1981, on the basis of which the name of the son (one of the heirs) had bene entered in the revenue records and mutation entry was certified," it noted.

It said that the reference made to provisions of Saurashtra Gharkhed Act on the alleged transfer to non-agriculturist on the ground that the petitioner, daughter of original owner, was not agriculturist is wholly uncalled for. The reason being that the land in question was in ownership of private person, i.e. the petitioner's father and no provision of Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance 1949 were attracted in respect to such land.

The bench further noted that "erring officials who have been instrumental in filing appeal resulting in wasteful expenditure are required to be penalized by imposing cost which is to be realized from their personal pocket". However it said that the issue of cost imposition will be decided after response in the inquiry to be conducted by Advocate General is received.

On merits the court found no reason to entertain the appeal dismissed it on both delay and merits.

The court said that its order be also brought to the notice of Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department to apprise the officer about working of department and take immediate corrective measures.

Case title: STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. v/s JETHIBEN BHAGVANDAS SHAMBHUVANI

F/LPA/32776/2025