Collector Cannot Adjudicate Title or Question Historical Revenue Entries While Processing Non-Agricultural Land Use Applications

The petitioner purchased land admeasuring 4,955 sq. mtrs. at Ramangamdi, Vadodara via a registered sale deed dated 08.04.2023

Mutation entry no. 2307 was certified in the revenue records on 27.06.2023, reflecting an area of 4,755 sq. mtrs.

The petitioner paid the required penalty in Ganot Case No. 144 of 2023 to regularize the holding

the Collector rejected the petitioner’s application for Non-Agricultural (N.A.) use permission dated 10.05.2025 under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.

The rejection was grounded on an alleged discrepancy in the land area, claiming the petitioner sought N.A. permission for "excess area" beyond original holdings

1. Whether the Collector has the jurisdiction under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code to reject an N.A. application by inquiring into the title or historical anomalies of the land area

2. Whether the impugned order of rejection was based on an erroneous consideration of facts regarding the petitioner's occupancy and the land area

Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, which governs the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use

Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat [2019 (4) GLR 2578], which establishes that the scope of inquiry under Section 65 is limited to "occupancy" and "agricultural use," rather than a deep dive into the validity of the title or historical revenue entries

State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha [(1969) 2 SCC 187], holding that the Collector cannot decide serious disputes of title in summary revenue proceedings

The Court observed that the petitioner is the "occupant" of the land by virtue of a registered sale deed and current revenue records (Form 7 and 12), which demonstrate a holding of 4,755 sq. mtrs.

The Court reasoned that under Section 65, the Collector is only required to verify if the applicant is an occupant and if the land is held for agriculture; the Collector lacks jurisdiction to "dig graves" by scrutinizing 30-year-old entries or questioning the specific area as long as the registered deed stands

The Court found the Collector’s objection—regarding the sale of land in excess of original area—to be an "erroneous consideration" because the petitioner had already regularized the purchase and paid the requisite premiums/penalties

By refusing N.A. permission on grounds of technical title discrepancy, the Collector transgressed the jurisdictional limits set by the Code

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated 21.06.2025. The High Court directed the Collector, Vadodara, to reconsider the petitioner’s application strictly in accordance with the law; Rule was made absolute.