JAGDISH SHIVJI DHOLU (PATEL) vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/3766/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3766 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
JAGDISH SHIVJI DHOLU (PATEL) & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR P S DATTA(11324) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS DHARITIR Y PANCHOLI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 05/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. P.S. Datta, learned advocate appearing for
the petitioners and Ms. Dharitri 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
have prayed for the following reliefs:
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/3766/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a
writ of Mandamus and/or an appropriate writ in the
nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside
the impugned orders dated i)10.11.2020
(Annexure-L), ii) 04.09.2023 (Annexure-M), iii)
15.04.2024(Annexure-N), iv) 25.11.2024 (Annexure-
O), v)30.01.2025 (Annexure-P), vi) 17.7.2025
(Annexure-U) passed by the respondent No.2 –
District Collector, Gandhinagar and YOUR
LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the
respondent No.2 – District Collector, Gandhinagar to
grant N.A permission strictly in accordance with
provisions of section 65 of the Gujarat Land
Revenue Code, 1879;
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the
present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased
to stay the operation, implementation and
execution of the impugned orders dated dated
i)10.11.2020 (Annexure-L), ii) 04.09.2023
(Annexure-M), iii) 15.04.2024 (Annexure-N),
iv)25.11.2024 (Annexure-O), v) 30.01.2025
(Annexure-P), vi) 17.7.2025 (Annexure-U) passed
by the respondent No.2 – District Collector,
Gandhinagar and YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased
to direct the respondent No.2 – District Collector,
Gandhinagar to grant N.A for the land in question;
in the interest of justice;
(C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that
may be thought just and proper, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.”
4. By way of the present petition, the petitioners invoke
the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Hon’ble Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thereby
seek to challenge orders dated 10.11.2020, 04.09.2023,
15.04.2024, 25.11.2024, 30.01.2025 and 17.07.2025
passed by the respondent No. 2 – District Collector,
Gandhinagar whereby the applications of the present
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/3766/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
petitioners were consigned to be filed, which was preferred
under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code for
converting the land for getting permission for Non-
agriculture use of the land in question bearing
Block/Survey No. 1305 (old Revenue survey No. 1056/2)
New Survey No. 823, Khata No. 1767 admeasuring about
5896 Sq. Mts., of Mouje Village Rancharda, Dist.
Gandhinagar on the ground that the sellers and
predecessors of the present petitioners are not original
agriculturist and the negative opinions by the authorities.
5. Mr. Datta, learned advocate submits that the
promulgation entry duly produced at Page 103 being Entry
No. 10905 certified on 29.07.2020 has attained finality and
that the petitioner herein is an owner and occupier of the
land in question, the same being old tenure having
produced at Form – 7 at Annexure-A, page 40. It is
submitted that in view thereof the petitioners application
was required to be considered on the strength of the
petitioners’ status as the occupier of the land in question
and whether the petitioner herein is conducting agricultural
activities while the petitioner herein approached the
authorities from time to time pointing out that the
objections raised as such are not tenable while considering
the application under Section 65 of the Code. It is submitted
that though the same was reiterated from time to time by
preferring applications as referred to hereinabove, the
Page 3 of 11
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/3766/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
respondent authority failed to consider the petitioners’
application and in view thereof, the petitioner herein has no
other remedy but to approach this Court. It is also
submitted that reliance is also placed on the order passed in
RTS Appeal/Case No. 141/2015 wherein the proceedings
qua the predecessor are consigned to file by order dated
20.05.2016 and the proceedings under Section 84-C of the
Tenancy Act are dropped. In view thereof, the petitioners’
application was required to be considered on its own
strength and the petitioners’ herein having purchased the
land in question by way of registered sale deed dated
20.02.2018 which is also produced at Annexure - E (Page
44).
6. Mr. Parikh, learned AGP submits that in view of the
status of the predecessor of the petitioner as agriculturist in
cloud, the petitioners’ applications were rightly rejected.
7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, it is not in dispute that the applications
preferred by the petitioners seeking N.A. permission came to
be rejected time and again by the competent authorities on
the ground that the sellers and predecessors of the present
petitioners are not original agriculturist and the negative
opinions of the concerned authorities.
Page 4 of 11
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/3766/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
8. In view thereof, the impugned orders are such that the
respondent authorities have failed to consider the fact that
the petitioner has purchased the land in question by way of
a registered sale deed and that the petitioner herein is an
occupier of the land in question which is an old tenure land.
The reason assigned by the competent authority while
rejecting the petitioners’ application are such that the same
are beyond the purview while considering the application
under Section 65 of the Code. It is also not in dispute that
the promulgation Entry No. 10905 duly produced at page
103 has attained finality and the proceedings under Section
84-C of the Tenancy Act qua the predecessor in title of the
petitioner are also dropped as referred to hereinabove.
8.1. In view thereof, the respondent authority while
considering an application under Section 65 of the Code is
required to be taken into consideration whether the
applicant/owner is a legal occupant of the land in question
and is engaged in agricultural activity.
9. 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 5 of 11
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/3766/2026 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
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/3766/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
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
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/3766/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
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.”
9.1. 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
Page 8 of 11
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/3766/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
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 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
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/3766/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
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.
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.”
10. In view of the aforesaid, in the facts of the present
case, considering the ratio as referred herein above, in
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/3766/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. If the
petitioners’ were to prefer a fresh application, the same be
considered by the respondent authority in accordance with
the statutory mandate of Section 65 of the Code and the
ratio laid down by 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.
11. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed. Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
SHAHANAZ
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:38 IST 2026