PARESHBHAI SHANKARBHAI CHAUDHARY vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/1395/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1395 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
PARESHBHAI SHANKARBHAI CHAUDHARY
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. ARCHIT P JANI(7304) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DHARITRI Y PANCHOLI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 05/05/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Archit P. Jani, learned advocate appearing
for the petitioner and Ms. Dharitri Y. Pancholi, learned AGP
appearing for the respondents.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Dharitri Pancholi,
learned AGP waives service of rule for and on behalf of the
respondent – State.
3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein
has prayed for the following prayers:
“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, quashing and setting aside the orders [ (i)
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/1395/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
01.07.2023 (Annexure-F), (ii) 22.08.2023 (Annexure-
G), (iii) 07.11.2023 (Annexure-H), (iv) 29.01.2024
(Annexure-J) and (v) 22.01.2025 (Annexure-K)]
passed by the respondent No.2 Collector, Mehsana,
rejecting/disposing applications for conversion of
subject land from agricultural to non-agricultural use
under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code,
1879;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, directing the respondent No.2 – Collector,
Mehsana, to decide the petitioner's application
dated 17.12.2025 (Annexure-L) for conversion of the
subject land bearing Survey No. 3628, situated at
Village Visnagar, Taluka Visnagar, District Mehsana
pass appropriate order allowing the application, for
non-agricultural purpose, in accordance with Section
65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879;
(B-1) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash
and set aside the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by
the Collector Mehsana (Annexure-Q) and be further
pleased to direct the Collector, Mehsana to
reconsider the application of the Y Petitioner for
Non-Agriculture permission afresh and pass an
appropriate order in accordance with law.
(C) Pending the admission, hearing and final
disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may
be pleased to stay execution, operation and
implementation of the orders ( dated (i) 01.07.2023
(Annexure-F), (ii) 22.08.2023 (Annexure-G), (iii)
07.11.2023 (Annexure-H), (iv) 29.01.2024
(Annexure-J) and (v) 22.01.2025 (Annexure-K))
passed by the respondent No.2 Collector, Mehsana,
(D) Pending the admission, hearing and final
disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may
be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to decide
the application. expeditiously and issue order under
section-65 of Gujarat Land Revenue Code. 1879;
(E) Your Lordships be pleased to grant such other
and further relief/s and/or order as deemed fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice.”
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/1395/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
4. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged
the impugned orders passed by the respondent No. 2 –
Collector, Mehsana; whereby the application filed by the
petitioner under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue
Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) seeking
conversion of the land bearing Survey No. 3628, old Survey/
Block No. 2350 situated at Village Visnagar, Taluka
Visnagar, District Mehsana, which came to be rejected by
the impugned orders dated 01.07.2023, 22.08.2023,
07.11.2023, 29.01.2024, 22.01.2025 and 27.01.2026
respectively on the ground that it is to be verified that the
proceedings under the Tenancy Act is initiated or not
pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Civil Court
which is recorded vide mutation Entry No. 47487 and in
view thereof, the petitioner’s application is consigned to file
by the impugned orders as referred to hereinabove, the first
order dated 01.07.2023 and other subsequent orders as
referred to hereinabove.
Application
Impugned
Number
order date
30404202302560 01.07.2023
30404202303434 22.08.2023
30404202304523 07.11.2023
30404202305578 29.01.2024
30404202404083 22.01.2025
30404202505274 27.01.2026
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/1395/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
5. Mr. Jani, learned advocate submits that he relies on
the certificate of the Agriculturist duly produced on record
at Page 6 and submits that the petitioner herein is in receipt
of a valid certificate of agriculturist issued by the Prant
Officer, Visnagar at Mehsana on 13.10.2020. The petitioner
herein has purchased the land in question by way of a
registered sale deed. It is submitted that in absence of any
proceedings against the petitioner herein, the impugned
orders passed by the competent authorities are required to
be quashed and set aside.
6. Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned AGP is not in a position
to dispute the aforesaid factual position.
7. Considering the submissions made by Mr. Jani,
learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, it is not in
dispute that no proceedings whatsoever were initiated
against the predecessor-in-title of the land in question
under the Tenancy Act.
8.1. It is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down in LPA No.
1181 of 2025 and allied matters with CA (for condonation of
delay) No. 4716 of 2025, wherein, the Hon’ble Division
Bench reiterated the ratio laid down in Tusharbhai Ghelani.
It is apposite to refer to Para-14 to 18 and 25 of the said
judgment, which reads thus:
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/1395/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
“14. The impugned order dated 24.12.2024 records
that the affidavit filed by the Collector, Vadodara was
taken on record and the said affidavit though started
with an apology, but the collector tried to justify the
reasons for passing the orders impugned dated
28.10.2024 and 29.10.2024 for rejection of the NA
application, more particularly, as regards the
probability of the provisions of Agricultural Land
Ceiling Act being violative on account of the Entry No.
780 dated 06.02.1985. It is noted by the learned
Single Judge in the order impugned that the Collector,
Vadodara has failed to appreciate the law laid down by
this court in the case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai
Ghelani and Anr. Vs State of Gujarat and Ors.
[2019 (4) GLR 2578] , which was the basis of passing
the judgement and order dated 31.01.2024 wherein
the scope of inquiry under Section 65 of the Bombay
Land Revenue Code, 1879 has been laid down.
15. The writ court records that in the first round of
litigation vide judgment and order dated 31.01.2024,
the Coordinate Bench had specifically laid down that
Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879
provides for the use to with an occupant of the land for
the purposes of agriculture may put his land to. The
key words in section 65 of the Code is the occupant of
the land and it is sufficient for the purposes of Section
65 of the Code that the person applying for NA
permission is the occupant of the land. The question
about the title or ownership over the land in question
for which NA permission is sought, cannot be
examined within the scope of Section 65 of the
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. It was also noted
that in the facts of the present case, the petitioners
therein (herein as well) stand at a better footing as
they are not only occupants of the subject lands but
also the owners thereof by virtue of the registered
Sale Deed dated 06.09.2022.It is also noted that the
registered sale deed has not been cancelled or held
invalid by any competent Court of law.
16. The judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 passed
by the writ court allowing the writ petitions of the year
2023 categorically records that the Collector,
Vadodara while rejecting the applications for
conversion of the land into NA land had travelled back
in time in respect of history of the lands in question
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/1395/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
about 30 years ago. The questionable entries being
revenue entries of 30 years old could not have been
made basis for rejection of the NA applications. Some
entries mutated on account of the Will could not have
been disputed on the doubts raised in the order as to
whether there was a blood relationship between the
parties (executant and the beneficiary) or not
17. It was noted that the impugned order indicated of
some alleged illegalities committed sometime in the
years 1980s and 1990s which was not the subject
matter of scrutiny to raise any doubt about the title of
the petitioners over the lands in question so as to take
it a ground for rejection of NA applications. It is also
noted by the writ court in the first round that nothing
came out from the record as to whether any
proceedings were initiated in respect of any of the
shortcomings mentioned in the orders impugned for
rejecting NA permission. In absence of there being any
other material and also the fact that the petitioners
are bona fide purchasers of the land in question, being
the last persons in the chain of transactions, NA
applications moved by them could not have been
rejected. The writ petitions were allowed taking note of
the ratio of law laid down by the Coordinate bench in
Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani (supra) vide
judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 with the above
noted categorical observations by the writ court to
remand the matter to the Collector, Vadodara for fresh
decision.
18. Taking note of the above, it is neither
understandable nor acceptable as to how that the
Collector, Vadodara could have rejected the fresh
applications filed by the petitioners in the second
round by passing the orders dated 28.10.2024 and
29.10.2024 on the very selfsame grounds on which the
NA applications filed in the year 2023 were rejected.
25. Noticing the above, we find that the officers
holding the office of Collector, Vadodara at the
relevant point of time have failed to apply their minds
to the settled legal position pertaining to the inquiry to
be made under Section 65 of the Bombay Land
Revenue Code, 1879 in utter ignorance of the decision
of this Court in Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani (supra).
The attitude of the officers in passing repeated orders
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/1395/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
putting caveat about the title of the predecessor in
interest of the petitioners by digging graves, to reject
the NA permission was without any substantive basis.
There is nothing on record even in the present set of
appeals filed by the State appellant which would
indicate that any legal proceedings had ever been
initiated with respect to the revenue entries made in
favour of the predecessors in interest of the
petitioners. All doubts raised in the first set of orders
of rejection of the NA permission of the year 2023 till
the third set of orders of rejection of the year 2025,
were without any basis.”
8.2. It is also apposite to refer to the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Court in the case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai
Ghelani and Anr. v/s. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported
in 2019 (4) GLR 2578 , relevant Para-34 to 44 reads thus:
“34. Tested on the touchstone of the above principles,
the impugned order passed by the Collector, in my view,
is not sustainable.
35. Section 65 of the Code, referred to above, on its plain
reading, do not provide for any scope of raising objection
by any party who is yet to establish its right in his favour
over the land in question. In other words, the proceedings
under section 65 of the Code is not an adversary
proceeding at all.
36. In section 65 of the Code, referred to above, two
words are of pivotal importance; (i) “occupant” and (ii)
“holding”. Section 3(12) defines the term “holding”. It
reads as under;
“3(12):-”holding”:-”holding” means a portion of land held
by a holder”
37. Section 3(16) defines the term “occupant”. It reads
under; “3(16):-”occupant”; “occupant means a holder in
actual possession of unalienated land, other than a
tenant; provided that where the holder in actual
possession is tenant the landlord or superior landlord, as
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/1395/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
the case may be, shall be deemed to be the occupant.”
38. Thus, the plain reading of section 65 makes it clear
that for the purpose of grant of N.A. Permission, the first
thing the Collector should look into is whether the
applicant, seeking N.A. Permission, is an occupant of the
land which is being assessed or held for the purpose of
agriculture. For the purpose of ascertaining this, the
Collector is expected to look into the revenue records.
The name of the applicant in the revenue records would
prima facie go to show or rather indicate that he is the
occupant of the land. The second step in the process
would be to ascertain whether such land is being
assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture.
39. Section 65 of the Code provides for the uses to which
an occupant of land for the purpose of agriculture may
put his land to. If the occupant of the land wishes to use
the land for purposes other than the agriculture or
agriculture-related activities, he is required to make an
application to the Collector for permission to do so. It may
be noted that the key-word in Section 65 is the occupant
of the land. It is sufficient for the purposes of Section 65,
that the person applying for NA Permission is an occupant
of the land. It is nowhere stated in the said provision that
the applicant should have title or ownership over the land
for which NA Permission is sought. The legislature, in its
wisdom, has thought it fit that it should suffice if an
occupant of the land applies for NA Permission. It is not
necessary that such person has to prove his title to the
land before he makes an application. The present case is
on a far better footing. Not only are the petitioners
occupants of the land, they are also the owners thereof,
by a legal and valid registered Sale Deed. The said sale
deed may be a subject matter of challenge before the
Civil Court but the fact remains that the Civil Court has
not yet passed any decree cancelling the same or
declaring it to be illegal or obtained by fraud.
40. Thus, it transpires that, no power is available to the
Collector under Section 65 of the Code to examine or
conclude regarding the title of the writ applicants over
the land in question. A bare reading of the said provision
makes it clear that it only provides for the uses to which
an occupant of land for agricultural purposes, may put his
land to. The provision further lays down the procedure to
be followed for making an application for NA Permission
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/1395/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
by the occupier and the manner in which it is to be
processed by the Competent Authority. Nowhere is it
contemplated in Section 65 that the Collector is
empowered to undertake an inquiry into the title of the
occupier.
th
41. A perusal of the impugned order dated 19
November, 2014 passed by the Collector makes it clear
that the reason for the rejection of the application of the
writ applicants is that their title to the land in question is
defective on the ground that two civil suits are pending.
42. In State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha,(1969)2 SCC
187, the Supreme Court has clearly held as below ”14.
We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner should
not have gone into question of title. It seems to us that
when the title of an occupant is disputed by any party
before the Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute
is serious the appropriate course for the Collector or the
Commissioner would be to refer the parties to a
competent Court and not decide the question of title
himself against the occupant.”
43. This was also a case where the NA Permission under
the provisions of Section 65 of the Code was in issue. The
above principles of law therefore, squarely apply to the
present case.
44. Considering the provisions of Section 65 of the Code
as well as the above pronouncement of law by the
Supreme Court, this Court cannot but arrive at the
inevitable conclusion that the denial of NA Permission to
the writ applicants under the garb of a purportedly
defective title over the land in question amounts to a
transgression of the limits of jurisdiction vested in the
second respondent under the Code. The impugned order
is, therefore, one without jurisdiction. For such reason
also the plea of alternative remedy should fail.”
9. In view thereof, the impugned orders passed by the
competent authority are required to be quashed and set
aside and the same are quashed and set aside. Further,
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/1395/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
while exercising the powers under Section 65 of the Code,
the respondent authority can summarily inquire whether
the applicant is in lawful possession of the land in question
and undertaking agricultural activity while admittedly the
impugned order is passed in access of jurisdiction.
10. In view thereof, the same is quashed and set aside. If
the petitioner were to make a fresh application, the
respondent No. 2 – Collector to decide the petitioner’s
application in accordance with Section 65 of the Code and
the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Court in the case of
Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani and Anr. v/s. State of
Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2019 (4) GLR 2578 and duly
confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1181 of 2025 and
allied matters with CA (for condonation of delay) No. 4716 of
2025 within a statutory time period.
11. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is
allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
SHAHANAZ
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:10 IST 2026