Collector cannot deny NA permission by questioning Civil Court's decree or title jurisdiction under Section 65.

The petitioners purchased land at Survey/Block No. 146/P1 in Sotamala, Banaskantha through a registered sale deed dated 04.08.2022 and are the fifth subsequent purchasers

They applied for Non-Agriculture (N.A.) use permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.

The District Collector (Respondent No. 2) rejected the application on 21.02.2023, claiming that a 2016 Civil Court compromise decree (Entry No. 1942) involving a tribal-to-non-tribal transfer was without jurisdiction and violated Section 73-AA of the Code due to lack of prior permission

The petitioners challenged this rejection, noting that the original transfer occurred in 1963, prior to the 1980 amendment of Section 73-AA

1. Whether the District Collector has the jurisdiction under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code to sit in judgment over a Civil Court decree or inquire into the validity of the applicant's title

2. Whether a transaction involving tribal land executed in 1963 is hit by the restrictive provisions of Section 73-AA which came into effect in 1981

Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the procedure for using agricultural land for other purposes and focuses on the "occupant" and "holding" rather than an exhaustive inquiry into title

Section 73-AA is not retrospective and does not affect transfers made before 01.02.1981 [Minaben Girishchandra & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2022)]

revenue authorities cannot decide serious disputes of title or ignore Civil Court decrees during N.A. permission proceedings [Tushar Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (2019); State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (1969)]

The Court reasoned that the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by questioning a Civil Court decree that had already attained finality

The 2016 decree specifically recorded that the original sale occurred in 1963; because Section 73-AA was only introduced in 1981, the transaction could not be in breach of a law that did not exist at the time

Under Section 65, the Collector’s role is primarily to verify if the applicant is the "occupant" as shown in revenue records

By rejecting the N.A. application on the grounds of "defective title" due to alleged statutory breaches—despite a judicial decree to the contrary—the Collector erroneously transformed a summary administrative proceeding into an adversary proceeding on title

The Court directed that if the petitioners file a fresh application for N.A. permission, the respondent authorities must decide it in accordance with the law within the statutory period. Rule was made absolute.