MAULIK YOGESHKUMAR SHAH vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/9924/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9924 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MAULIK YOGESHKUMAR SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DESHAL A MODI(12518) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 07/05/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Amit V. Thakkar, the learned advocate appearing
for Mr. Deshal A. Modi, the learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, the learned AGP appearing for
the respondent – State.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, the learned
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:04 IST 2026
C/SCA/9924/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
AGP waives service of rule for and on behalf of the respondent –
State.
3. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has
challenged the impugned orders dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure-G)
and 06.03.2023 (Annexure-E) passed by the learned District
Collector, Kachchh having consigned to be ‘filed’ the petitioner’s
application under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code,
1879 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) seeking N. A.
Use Permission. The Application No.30104202300347 was
consigned to ‘filed’ on the ground that against the order dated
24.1.2021 passed by the learned Special Secretary Revenue
Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned SSRD’ for short), a
proposal is forwarded to file petition before this Court.
4. The petitioner herein preferred second application being
Application No.30104202501241 dated 15.5.2025 wherein the said
application is consigned to ‘filed’ on the ground that with regard to
the Entry No.1062 of the petitioner’s predecessor-in-title and his
status as an agriculturist proceeding is pending. The said entry is
produced at Annexure-B. The said entry has also attained finality.
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:04 IST 2026
C/SCA/9924/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
5. Mr. Amit V. Thakkar, the learned advocate appearing for
petitioner submits that the impugned orders are contrary to the
record wherein Arvind Kirtilal Vora is the vendor. The petitioner
purchased the land in question by Registered Sale Deed dated
6.3.2020 for which Revenue Entry No.5180 dated 6.3.2020 is
mutated and certified on 6.6.2020.
5.1 It is further submitted that the petitioner gathered information
and came to know that against one Bakulbhai Kirtibhai Vora, suo-
motu proceedings Case No.174/2018 with regard to some other
land bearing Survey No.56 concerning his Entry No.4538 dated
13.6.2017 was initiated. The said entry was rejected by order
dated 30.10.2021 which gave rise to Revision Application No.161
of 2021 before the learned SSRD by order dated 24.2.2022 and
the State Government was proposing to file petition. Arvind Kirtilal
Vora appears to be brother of Bakulbhai Kirtibhai Vora, the
person affected as per the order dated 30.10.2021 passed in
Case No.174 of 2018.
5.2 It is also learnt that the State Government has filed the
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:04 IST 2026
C/SCA/9924/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
Special Civil Application No.11719 of 2024. The petitoner herein is
not in any way concerned with the said proceedings. The petitioner
herein has purchased the land in question by way of a registered
sale deed wherein the Entry No.5180 dated 6.3.2020 is mutated
and certified on 6.6.2020. The status of the land in question is an
agricultural land and the petitioner hrein also holds agricultural
land. The petitioner herein is also a agriculturist account holder in
the joint name being Account No.111 to 7/12 8-A of Survey
No.296, Mouje : Bakrol, Badarabad, Taluka : Vejalpur, Dist.
Ahmedabad.
5.3 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted
that the matter be remanded back to the learned Collector to
decide afresh.
6. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, the learned AGP submits that tenancy
proceedings are initiated qua vendor’s family i.e. Arvind Kirtilal
Vora. It is submitted that for pendency of such proceedings against
the petitioner vendor and in view thereof this Court may not
interfere in the impugned orders passed by the responent No.2.
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:04 IST 2026
C/SCA/9924/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, it emerges from the record that by the
impugned orders dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure-G) and 06.03.2023
(Annexure-E) passed by the learned District Collector, Kachchh
the petitioner’s applications for N. A. Use Permission under
Section 65 of the Code are consigned to be ‘filed’ on the grounds
distinct from Section 65 of the Code wherein the petitioner’s
applications are consigned to be ‘filed’ on the ground that the order
passed by the learned SSRD dated 24.2.2021 is challenged
before the High Court.
7.1 It is also not in dispute that Entry No.1062 is mutated in the
name of the vendor Arvind Kirtilal Vora has also attained finality
and is also an agriculturist. The proceedings that are pending qua
Arvind Kirtilal Vora’s brother. The petitioner is a registered sale
deed holder, as referred to hereinabove, and is in no way
connected with the pending litigation.
7.2 The aforesaid cannot be a ground to consign to ‘file’ the
petitioner’s N. A. Use Permission application, considering the fact
that while deciding an application under Section 65 of the Code the
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:04 IST 2026
C/SCA/9924/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
respondent authority can summarily inquire whether the applicant
is in legal occupation of the land in question and using the land for
agriculture purpose.
8. At this stage, it is 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 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 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 10
Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:04 IST 2026
C/SCA/9924/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
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 10
Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:04 IST 2026
C/SCA/9924/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
8 .1 It is also apposite to refer to the ratio laid down in case of
Tushar Ghelani and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2019
(4) GLR 2578 wherein, paragraphs 35 to 40 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.
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
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:04 IST 2026
C/SCA/9924/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
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.”
9. In the facts of the present case and for the reasons, as
stated hereinabove, and considering the aforesaid position of law,
as referred to hereinabove, the impugned orders dated 15.05.2025
(Annexure-G) and 06.03.2023 (Annexure-E) passed by the learned
District Collector, Kachchh having consigned to ‘filed’ the
petitioner’s application under Section 65 of the Code is required to
be quashed and set aside and the same are quashed and set
aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2 –
District Collector, Kachchh to decide afresh.
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:04 IST 2026
C/SCA/9924/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
10. If the petitioners were to prefer a fresh application seeking
N.A. Use Permission, the same be decided by the respondent
No.2 in accordance with law under the provisions of Section 65 of
the Code as also the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, as
referred to hereinabove i.e. Hon’ble Division Bench in Letters
Patent Appeal No.1181 of 2025 and in case of Tushar Ghelani
and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2019 (4) GLR 2578
within the statutory period.
11. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is partly
allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
K.K. SAIYED
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:20:04 IST 2026