Farmer’s Daughter Retains Agriculturist Status Despite Marriage, Record Changes: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that a daughter born into a farming family does not lose her status as an agriculturist merely because she marries or because her name is removed from revenue records.

Justice Divyesh A Joshi made the observation while allowing a petition filed by Jasumatiben Navaldas Dasani and others. The Court quashed the Porbandar Collector’s order dated August 19, 2016, and directed the restoration of revenue record entries dated May 26, 1990, which included Jasumatiben’s name.

The case concerned Jasumatiben’s status as an agriculturist after her name was allegedly removed from her family’s revenue records following the death of her father, Nathalal.

Sister Approached HC After Brother Allegedly Usurped Land

Following Nathalal’s death, Jasumatiben, a resident of Jaspar village in Jamkandorna taluka of Rajkot, alleged that her brother, Rameshbhai, had fraudulently usurped the family land. She alleged that forged documents were used to have her name removed from the revenue records, resulting in her losing her recorded status as an agriculturist.

Jasumatiben subsequently purchased agricultural land in 1990 using an agriculturist certificate issued by the local revenue authorities. The certificate was issued by the concerned Talati-cum-Mantri after verification of the records and reflected her connection to a farming family.

Third parties later objected to the transactions, claiming that Jasumatiben was not an agriculturist because her name did not appear in the original land records. The authorities subsequently initiated suo motu proceedings and cancelled the revenue entries relating to the land transactions on the ground that a non-agriculturist could not purchase agricultural land.

Jasumatiben then approached the Gujarat High Court challenging the action.

Court Examines Family’s Agricultural Land Records

The High Court noted that Jasumatiben’s grandfather, Bavalal Jadavji, was an agriculturist and that his agricultural land was distributed among his three sons, including Jasumatiben’s father, Nathalal.

The Court considered the family’s agricultural landholding, the revenue records and the agriculturist certificate issued to Jasumatiben.

The Court observed that the agriculturist certificate clearly indicated that Jasumatiben’s brother, Rameshbhai, possessed agricultural land inherited from the family. As the daughter of an agriculturist, Jasumatiben also held agriculturist status.

The Court further noted that the certificate had been issued by the concerned Talati-cum-Mantri after verification of the records. Therefore, it could not be said that Jasumatiben had obtained her agriculturist status on the basis of forged documents; she had held that status from birth.

The revenue records also contained entries relating to the land that was subsequently sold to third parties through registered sale deeds.

Marriage Did Not Extinguish Agriculturist Status

A key issue before the High Court was whether Jasumatiben continued to be an agriculturist despite her marriage and the removal of her name from the revenue records.

The Court relied on the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, under which a daughter is recognised as a co-parcener in her father’s property. It also considered earlier Gujarat High Court decisions concerning the agriculturist status of women who marry non-agriculturists.

The Court held that a woman does not lose her agriculturist status merely because she marries a non-agriculturist. Similarly, the alleged fraudulent removal of her name from the revenue records could not by itself extinguish the status she held by birth.

The Court’s observations were made in the context of Jasumatiben’s family background, the ancestral agricultural land and the agriculturist certificate issued to her before she purchased the land.

Collector’s Order Came After 19 Years

The High Court also examined the delay in initiating suo motu proceedings against the revenue entries.

The entries relating to Jasumatiben’s 1990 land transactions had remained in the records for about 19 years before the authorities initiated proceedings to cancel them.

The Court observed that even where legislation does not prescribe a specific limitation period for exercising revisional powers, such powers must be exercised within a reasonable period.

The Court also considered the effect of an amendment to the applicable law that was introduced before the proceedings were finally decided. It held that the parties should have been given an opportunity to address the applicability of the amended provision before it was relied upon.

The Court found that deciding the matter on the basis of the amended provision without giving the affected parties such an opportunity violated the principles of natural justice.

High Court Quashes Collector’s Order

Taking these factors into consideration, the High Court set aside the Collector’s order dated August 19, 2016.

The Court directed the authorities to restore the revenue entries dated May 26, 1990, which recorded Jasumatiben’s name in connection with the agricultural land.

The ruling reinforces the principle that a woman’s agriculturist status is not automatically extinguished by marriage or by the subsequent alteration of revenue records, including where such alteration is alleged to have been carried out fraudulently.