KAMLESHBHAI DAHYABHAI JOSHI vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/3487/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3487 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=============================================
KAMLESHBHAI DAHYABHAI JOSHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
PRATEEK S BHATIA(8629) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 17/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Jayneel Parikh,
learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf
of the respondent – State authorities.
2. Heard Mr. Prateek S. Bhatia, learned advocate appearing
for the petitioner and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP
appearing for the respondent – State authorities.
3. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein is
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:28 IST 2026
C/SCA/3487/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.01.2026, passed in
Non-Agricultural (NA) Application No.31903202509307
whereby, the petitioner’s application for NA permission, came
to be rejected questioning the status of the predecessor of the
petitioner as an agriculturist dated 06.08.2020 is not shown in
the revenue record.
4. Mr. Prateek S. Bhatia, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner submits that the said mutation entry No.5274 is
otherwise in the name of the petitioner’s predecessor. The
petitioner herein purchased the land-in-question by way of a
registered sale deed dated 10.07.2024 for which, mutation
entry No.5848 is recorded in the revenue record. It is
submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein
holds agriculture land and is also an agriculturist. To
substantiate the submission, reliance is placed on the affidavit,
which is part of the application seeking NA permission under
Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, by way of
Parishith – A, the said information is produced on record. It is
submitted that rather than considering the aforesaid
undisputed aspect, the impugned order is passed on the
erroneous grounds with respect to the mutation entry No.4111,
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:28 IST 2026
C/SCA/3487/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
mutated in the revenue record on 29.11.2011 and the
mutation entry No.5274, mutated in revenue record on
06.08.2020, the same having attained finality.
4.1 Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in case of
Tushar Ghelani and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in
2019 (4) GLR 2578, to submit that while considering an
application under Section 65 of the Code, the respondent No.2
assumes power to summarily verify whether the applicant is
occupying the land-in-question legally and undertaking
agriculture activities.
5. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the
respondent – State authorities is not in a position to controvert
to the aforesaid however, submits that no interference is called
for in the impugned orders passed by the competent
authorities as the petitioner’s predecessor’s status as an
agriculturist is not clear.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein
purchased the land bearing Survey No.845 (Old Survey
No.7290/1), Village : Madodhar, Taluka : Vaghodia, District :
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:28 IST 2026
C/SCA/3487/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
Vadodara, by way of a registered sale deed on 10.07.2024 for
which, mutation entry No.5848 is recorded in the revenue
record duly produced at Annexure – D to the petition.
6.1 The petitioner herein applied for Non-Agricultural (NA)
permission before the respondent No.2 by way of Application
No.31903202509307. The said application is duly produced at
Annexure – F, page 22 to the petition wherein, the petitioner
by way of affidavit (Prishisht - A) produced the details with
respect to the petitioner’s status of an agriculturist and the
petitioner holds an agricultural land, details of which are also
produced on record.
7. Considering the aforesaid, taking into consideration the
definition of the term ‘holding’ as provided under Section 3(12)
and the term ‘occupant’ under Section 3(16) of the Code, the
same is elaborately considered in case of Tushar Ghelani
and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2019 (4) GLR
2578, duly affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. Paragraphs
35 to 40 of the said decision read thus:
“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.
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:28 IST 2026
C/SCA/3487/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
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 as 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.
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
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:28 IST 2026
C/SCA/3487/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
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.”
7.1 It is also apposite to refer to the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1181
of 2025 and allied matters. It is apposite to reproduce Para –
14 to 18 and 25 of the said judgment, which read 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 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.
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:28 IST 2026
C/SCA/3487/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
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
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.”
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:28 IST 2026
C/SCA/3487/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
8. In view of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, while
considering an application under Section 65 of the Code, the
respondent No.2 can summarily inquire, as referred to
hereinabove, that whether the applicant holds an agricultural
land and is occupying the land-in-question legally. Once the
said conditions satisfied, the application for NA is required to
be considered in accordance with law. Further, the powers
exercised by the respondent No.2 under Section 65 of the
Code, are non adversarial and also administrative in nature.
9. Considering the ratio laid down in case of Tusharbhai
Harjibhai Ghelani (supra) , as referred to hereinabove, in the
opinion of this Court, while passing the impugned order, the
respondent No.2 exceeded its jurisdiction in rejecting the
petitioner’s application seeking NA permission relying on the
entry No.4111, dated 29.11.201 and the entry No.5274, dated
06.08.2020 on the ground that the status is not shown as an
agriculturist in the record. Such grounds, in the opinion of this
Court, are erroneous in nature and contrary to the statutory
mandate of Section 65 of the Code.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:28 IST 2026
C/SCA/3487/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
21.01.2026 passed in NA Application No.31903202509307, is
quashed and set aside, in exercise of powers under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner herein to prefer a
fresh application, the same be decided by the respondent No.2
in accordance with law, within the statutory period.
11. The present petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
NEHA
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:28 IST 2026