The Supreme Court of India, comprising a bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria, has partially set aside an order of the Bombay High Court that exceeded its appeal scope and modified orders of the Gujarat High Court by requesting the appointment of an Advocate Receiver to manage a disputed 18-acre agricultural property. Addressing execution proceedings and tenancy claims across two High Courts, the Supreme Court restored an interim application before the Bombay High Court for proper adjudication while directing administration of the land in Gujarat through an Advocate Receiver during pending litigation.
Background of the Case
The dispute centers on agricultural land measuring approximately 18 acres and 10 gunthas, comprising Block Nos. 850P (old Survey Nos. 743, 744, and 745), 853 (old Survey No. 747), and 859P (old Survey No. 733) situated in Sanathal village, Sanand Taluka, Ahmedabad District.
On October 30, 2013, and April 15, 2015, the legal heirs of Hirabai Desai executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and a supplementary MoU agreeing to transfer the land to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Subsequently, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed Suit No. 955 of 2015 for specific performance of the MoUs, in which a Consent Decree was passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on May 6, 2016, alongside the appointment of a Court Receiver.
To enforce the 2016 decree, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 initiated execution proceedings in E.A. (L) No. 5258 of 2021. On March 11, 2022, the High Court allowed I.A. (L) No. 20980 of 2021, directing delivery of vacant possession of the property. The appellants then filed I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022 seeking to recall the March 11 delivery order.
When a Single Judge refused interim protection on April 4, 2022, the appellants filed Appeal (L) No. 12396 of 2022 before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. However, the Division Bench not only dismissed the appeal but also withdrew and disposed of the recall application pending before the Single Judge, observing that The Appellants’ application was based on the erroneous and mischievous assumption that the 11.03.2022 Order appointed a Court Receiver for the lands in execution.
Parallelly, in Gujarat, the appellants claimed that on June 3, 2024, they were declared “protected tenants” under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 challenged this order before the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 9081 and 10167 of 2024. On October 16, 2024, a Single Judge issued interim directions allowing the appellants to harvest standing crops, an arrangement upheld by a Division Bench on December 24, 2024, in Letters Patent Appeals.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the parties, Senior Counsel Mr. P.B. Suresh and Mr. V. Giri presented their respective contentions.
The senior counsel for the appellants argued that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court erred by taking up and disposing of the main recall application, I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022, when only the interim order was under appeal. Regarding the Gujarat proceedings, they contended that because their possession was protected under the June 3, 2024 tenancy order, merely permitting them to harvest existing crops while ordering status quo was legally impermissible.
Conversely, the respondents contended that objections against the April 12, 2022 order were academic in light of Civil Suit No. 724 of 2025 filed by the appellants. They submitted that the possession claimed by the appellants was contrary to delivery proceedings initiated by the Court Receiver in the execution application and maintained that the appellants should not be permitted to enjoy the property.
Court’s Analysis
Examining the pleadings and the proceedings of the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court noted that the Division Bench had overstepped the procedural bounds of the appeal before it. The bench observed that the impugned order dated June 28, 2022, had traversed beyond the scope of the subject matter of the Appeal (L) No. 12396 of 2022.
Regarding the orders from the Gujarat High Court, the apex court observed: There is a scramble for possession, and divergent views were canvassed by both the sides. Considering the options discussed with senior counsel, the court determined that appointing an Advocate Receiver would be the appropriate measure to supervise and manage the land while the main tenancy applications remain pending.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals with specific directives for both jurisdictions:
- Bombay High Court Proceedings: The court set aside the findings in Paragraphs 8 to 11 of the Bombay High Court’s order dated June 28, 2022, and restored I.A. No. (L) 10443 of 2022 to the file for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
- Gujarat High Court Proceedings: The court modified the orders dated October 16, 2024, and December 24, 2024, requesting the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court to appoint an Advocate Receiver and fix their fees for the administration and supervision of the subject property during the pendency of Special Civil Application Nos. 9081 and 10167 of 2024. The appointment will be subject to the final outcome of those applications.
Case Title: Parbatsinh Dolatsang Dodiya and Others v. Rameshbhai Harjibhai Makwana and Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 10586-10588 of 2026 with Civil Appeal Nos. 10667-10668 of 2026
Bench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Date: August 20, 2026
