The Supreme Court has partly interfered with orders passed by the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts in connected disputes concerning around 18 acres and 10 gunthas of agricultural land at Sanathal village in Ahmedabad district.
A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria, in a judgment delivered on August 20, 2026, held that part of the Bombay High Court’s order had travelled beyond the scope of the appeal before it. The Court restored an application for consideration in accordance with law.
In the connected Gujarat proceedings, the Supreme Court modified the existing orders and directed the appointment of an Advocate Receiver to administer and supervise the disputed property during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court.
Background of the Case
The dispute relates to land bearing Block Nos. 850P, 853 and 859P in Sanathal village, Sanand Taluka, Ahmedabad District.
According to the judgment, the legal heirs of Hirabai Desai entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in 2013, followed by a supplementary MoU in 2015, concerning transfer of the property. A suit seeking specific performance was subsequently filed.
On May 6, 2016, the Bombay High Court passed a consent decree for specific performance and appointed a Court Receiver. Later, proceedings were initiated for enforcement of that decree and for delivery of vacant possession of the property.
The appellants challenged orders passed during those proceedings, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.
The connected Gujarat proceedings arose after the appellants claimed that they had been declared “protected tenants” under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Gujarat High Court had earlier directed an interim arrangement, including permission to reap standing crops.
Supreme Court Examines Scope of Bombay High Court Order
The Supreme Court noted that the parties had raised several contentions concerning the MoUs and their respective claims. However, the Bench made it clear that it was not deciding those underlying merits at this stage because the relevant proceedings would continue before the respective High Courts.
The Court specifically examined whether the Bombay High Court had gone beyond the limited scope of the appeal before it.
After considering the pleadings and the orders dated April 4, 2022 and June 28, 2022, the Bench held:
“We are of the view that the impugned Order dated 28.06.2022 has traversed beyond the scope of the subject matter of the Appeal (L) No. 12396 of 2022.”
The Supreme Court therefore set aside the findings contained in paragraphs 8 to 11 of the Bombay High Court’s June 28, 2022 order.
It also restored the appellants’ interim application, I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022, to the file and directed that it be heard and decided in accordance with law.
Advocate Receiver Directed for Gujarat Property
The Bench separately considered the appeals arising from the Gujarat High Court proceedings.
The Supreme Court observed that both sides had put forward competing claims concerning possession and that there was “a scramble for possession” with divergent positions being advanced by the parties.
In these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to put an administrative arrangement in place while the substantive proceedings remained pending.
The Court directed the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court to appoint an Advocate Receiver and stipulate the fee payable for administering and supervising the disputed property.
Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that the appointment would remain subject to the final outcome of the pending Special Civil Applications.
The judgment states:
“The appointment of Advocate Receiver is subject to the final outcome of the Special Civil Application Nos. 9081 and 10167 of 2024 and would inure to the benefit of the successful parties.”
Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of all the connected civil appeals in the above terms.
For the Bombay proceedings, the Court set aside the specified findings of the June 28, 2022 order and restored the pending application for fresh consideration according to law.
For the Gujarat proceedings, the Court modified the High Court orders and directed the appointment of an Advocate Receiver to administer and supervise the disputed property pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Gujarat High Court.
Any pending applications were also directed to stand disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Parbatsinh Dolatsang Dodiya & Others v. Rameshbhai Harjibhai Makwana & Others
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 10586-10588 of 2026, with Civil Appeal Nos. 10667-10668 of 2026
Judge: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Decision Date: August 20, 2026
