AMRISH SIRISHCHANDRA PATEL vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/10176/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10176 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
AMRISH SIRISHCHANDRA PATEL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATEEK S BHATIA(8629) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS DHARITRI Y PANCHOLI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 06/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Prateek S. Bhatia, learned advocate
appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Dharitiri Y. Pancholi,
learned AGP appearing for the respondents.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Pancholi, learned AGP
waives service of rule for and on behalf of the respondent –
State.
3. By way of the present petition, the petitioners herein
prays for the following reliefs:
“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:00 IST 2026
C/SCA/10176/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, to quash and set aside the Orders
dated 13.06.2024 and 05.07.2025 passed in NA
Application No.31902202402404 and
319092202504082 (Annexure-A);
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a
writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction,
directing the Collector to accept the charges for
NA permission for land situated at Revenue
Survey No.1181 situated at Village-Itola, Taluka-
Vadodara Vadodara in the interest of justice and
equity;
(C) Grant such other and further relief(s) as may
be deemed fit in the interest of justice and
equity.”
4. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein
has challenged the impugned orders dated 13.06.2024 and
05.07.2025 passed by respondent No. 2 – Collector,
Vadodara, whereby the petitioner’s application for obtaining
Non-Agricultural (NA) permission in relation to land bearing
Revenue Survey No. 1181 situated at Village – Itola, Taluka
– Vadodara, District – Vadodara came to be rejected. The
order dated 13.06.2024 passed in NA Application No.
31902202402404 is rejected on the ground that there is
anomaly in the name of the petitioner No.1 in 7/12 record,
Registration No. 7333 and in the Aadhar Card of the
petitioner No.1. In view thereof, the application was
consigned to file. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 changed
his name and duly gazetted the same. The copy of the
gazette is produced at page No. 25 which indicates that on
08.02.2024, the appropriate change was made wherein the
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:00 IST 2026
C/SCA/10176/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
name of the petitioner No. 1 is changed from “Gupta Amrish
Shirishchandra” to “Patel Amrish Shirishchandra”. In view
of the aforesaid gazette notification, the petitioner No.1
reapplied for grant of NA which came to be rejected on the
ground that the earlier order dated 13.06.2024 was required
to be challenged by way of an Appeal by order dated
05.07.2025. The aforesaid has given rise to the filing of the
present petition.
5. Mr. Bhatia, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners submits that in the earlier application, the first
part of the order rejects the petitioner’s application and
subsequently consigns the petitioner’s application to file. In
view thereof, the petitioner never approached the appellate
authority. In the interregnum period, the petitioner’s name
in view of the gazette notification dated 08.02.2024 in
change of name of the petitioner from “Gupta Amrish
Sirishchandra” to “Patel Amrish Sirishchandra” (Serial No.
162) duly produced at page No. 25. The petitioner preferred
a fresh application and the said application is also rejected
by order dated 05.07.2025 on an erroneous ground that no
appeal is preferred rather than taking into consideration the
documents that were produced on record by the petitioner.
6. Ms. Pancholi, learned AGP is not in a position to
controvert the factual position.
7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties, it is not in dispute that the change in name of the
petitioner No. 1 is duly gazetted and in view thereof, if the
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:00 IST 2026
C/SCA/10176/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
petitioner were to approach the respondent authority by
filing a fresh petition placing on record all the relevant
documents as required under Section 65 of the Code, the
same be considered by the respondent No. 2 in accordance
with the powers as provided under Section 65 of the Code
and taking into consideration the ratio laid down 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.
7.1. 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:
“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
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:00 IST 2026
C/SCA/10176/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
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
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
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:00 IST 2026
C/SCA/10176/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
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
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.”
7.2. It is also apposite to refer to the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Court in the case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:00 IST 2026
C/SCA/10176/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
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 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.
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:00 IST 2026
C/SCA/10176/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
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 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.
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:00 IST 2026
C/SCA/10176/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
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.”
8. In the facts of the present case, for the reasons as
assigned above and considering the ratio laid down 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, the impugned orders dated 13.06.2024
and 05.07.2025 are quashed and set aside. If the petitioner
were to prefer a fresh application seeking Non-Agricultural
(NA) permission under Section 65 of theCode, the same be
decided within a statutory period of time.
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:00 IST 2026
C/SCA/10176/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
9. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is
partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
SHAHANAZ
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:00 IST 2026