Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (67 of 1948), S. 32G — Interim Relief / Preservation of Property — Competing claims of possession — Protected tenancy vs. Execution of Decree — Appointment of Advocate Receiver during pendency of Writ Petitions. Held: Where there is a serious scramble for possession between decree-holders seeking execution and parties claiming statutory status as "protected tenants" under Section 32G of the Act, an interim arrangement merely granting status quo and harvesting rights is insufficient. To properly administer and supervise the disputed agricultural lands without prejudicing the rights of either side, the High Court ought to appoint an Advocate Receiver pending the final outcome of the writ petitions. (Paras 9, 16)

 advocatemmmohan

  2026 INSC 898

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(From: Bombay High Court & Gujarat High Court)

Coram: S.V.N. BHATTI and N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.

Civil Appeal Nos. 10586-10588 of 2026 with Civil Appeal Nos. 10667-10668 of 2026, D/- 20-08-2026.

Parbatsinh Dolatsang Dodiya & Ors. — Appellants

versus

Rameshbhai Harjibhai Makwana & Ors. — Respondents

HEADNOTE

(A) Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908), Letters Patent Appeal / Appellate Jurisdiction — Scope of Appeal — Appellate Court deciding substantive pending interim application instead of restricting to the order under challenge — Sustainability.

Held: Where an appeal before the Division Bench arose out of a Single Judge’s interlocutory order refusing interim protection, the Division Bench traversed beyond the scope of the appellate proceedings by withdrawing and disposing of the substantive recall/objection application pending on the file of the Single Judge. The findings going beyond the scope of the appeal were liable to be set aside, and the underlying application was directed to be restored for disposal in accordance with law. (Paras 7, 15)

(B) Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (67 of 1948), S. 32G — Interim Relief / Preservation of Property — Competing claims of possession — Protected tenancy vs. Execution of Decree — Appointment of Advocate Receiver during pendency of Writ Petitions.

Held: Where there is a serious scramble for possession between decree-holders seeking execution and parties claiming statutory status as "protected tenants" under Section 32G of the Act, an interim arrangement merely granting status quo and harvesting rights is insufficient. To properly administer and supervise the disputed agricultural lands without prejudicing the rights of either side, the High Court ought to appoint an Advocate Receiver pending the final outcome of the writ petitions. (Paras 9, 16)

FACTS

The dispute pertained to agricultural land admeasuring approximately 18 acres 10 gunthas situated in Sanathal village, Sanand Taluka, Ahmedabad District.

• Bombay HC Proceedings: Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 obtained a Consent Decree for specific performance in Suit No. 955 of 2015 based on MoUs dated 30.10.2013 and 15.04.2015. In execution proceedings [E.A.(L) No. 5258 of 2021], an order was passed on 11.03.2022 directing delivery of vacant possession. The Appellants filed I.A.(L) No. 10443 of 2022 to recall the delivery order. The Single Judge refused interim relief on 04.04.2022. On appeal [Appeal (L) No. 12396 of 2022], the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and also prematurely withdrew and dismissed the pending recall application itself. (Paras 2, 4, 5, 7)
  
  
• Gujarat HC Proceedings: The Appellants claimed protected tenancy rights under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, vide order dated 03.06.2024. Challenging this, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed Special Civil Application Nos. 9081 and 10167 of 2024. The Single Judge granted status quo while allowing the Appellants to harvest standing crops, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA Nos. 1722 and 1749 of 2024. (Paras 9, 12)
  
  

ANALYSIS OF FACTS & LAW

• Exceeding Appellate Bounds: The Bombay High Court Division Bench erred in deciding the merits of the recall application [I.A.(L) No. 10443 of 2022] when the only order challenged before it was the interlocutory refusal of interim protection. The Division Bench exceeded its remit by extinguishing the application pending adjudication before the Single Judge. (Paras 11, 15)
  
  
• Preservation of Disputed Property via Receiver: In the Gujarat proceedings, given the sharp contest between the execution of the civil court decree and the tenancy rights under Section 32G, a mere direction to maintain status quo coupled with harvesting permission was inadequate to protect the property. Appointing an independent Advocate Receiver to administer and supervise the land pendente lite serves the interests of justice and avoids continuous possession disputes. (Para 16)
  
  

CONCLUSION

• Civil Appeal Nos. 10586-10588 of 2026: Allowed in part. The findings in Paragraphs 8 to 11 of the Bombay High Court's Division Bench order dated 28.06.2022 were set aside. I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022 was restored to the file of the Single Judge for disposal in accordance with law. (Para 15)
  
  
• Civil Appeal Nos. 10667-10668 of 2026: Disposed of with modifications. The impugned orders of the Gujarat High Court were modified with a request to the Single Judge to appoint an Advocate Receiver to supervise and administer the subject property during the pendency of the Special Civil Applications. (Para 16)