Collector cannot adjudicate title or rely on historical entries to deny NA permission to recorded occupants.

The petitioner purchased agricultural land in Survey No. 17 (Paiki 1 Paiki 4) at Mouje Naliya, Kutch, via a registered sale deed in 2021.

His name was subsequently mutated and certified in the revenue records (Entry Nos. 6244 and 6730), and separate forms/extracts were issued.

Historically, other portions of the same Survey No. 17 had been granted Non-Agricultural (NA) permission on four separate occasions, including twice by the Collector in 2019.

The petitioner applied for NA permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. However, the Collector, Kutch, rejected the application on 14.07.2025 and 31.12.2025, citing that old revenue entries (Nos. 125 and 790) contained references to "Shree Sarkar" (Government land).

The petitioner challenged these rejection orders before the High Court.

1. Whether the Collector, while exercising power under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, can adjudicate upon disputed questions of title or rely on ancient revenue entries to deny NA permission when the applicant is a recorded occupant.

2. Whether the rejection was valid given that the authorities had previously granted NA permissions for other sub-divisions of the same survey number.

The court primarily applied Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the procedure for an "occupant" to use agricultural land for other purposes.

The court relied on the precedent Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (2019), which established that the Collector's inquiry under Section 65 is limited to verifying if the applicant is a recorded occupant and if the land is eligible for conversion; the authority cannot resolve title disputes.

The court also cited the Supreme Court decision in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (1969), holding that revenue officers should refer parties to Civil Courts for title disputes rather than deciding them against the occupant.

Additionally, it noted Government Resolution dated 08.04.2025, which suggests transactions prior to 1995 should not typically hinder NA applications.

The court reasoned that since the petitioner was a "recorded occupant" by virtue of a registered sale deed and certified revenue entries, he met the primary threshold for Section 65.

The Collector erred by overstepping jurisdictional limits to investigate "defective title" based on historical entries (Nos. 125 and 790), especially since the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector had provided favorable reports.

The court emphasized that Section 65 proceedings are not adversarial and do not involve title adjudication.

Furthermore, the court found the Collector's stance contradictory and inconsistent, as the department had already granted NA permissions for four other sub-divisions of the same survey number in previous years without claiming government ownership.

The High Court allowed the petition in part, quashing the Collector's orders dated 14.07.2025 and 31.12.2025.

The matter was remanded to the Collector, Kutch, with directions to reconsider the petitioner’s application in light of the Tusharbhai Ghelani ratio and relevant Government Resolutions.