Collector cannot deny NA permission under Section 65 based on title disputes or historical revenue entries.

The petitioners, bona fide purchasers of land via registered sale deeds in 2023 and 2024, applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) Use Permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 on September 17, 2024.

The respondent No. 2 (District Collector, Kheda) rejected/filed the application on November 5, 2024, citing discrepancies in the revenue records from the year 1931-32.

Specifically, the Collector questioned the validity of a 1992 mortgage release (Mutation Entry No. 447), asserting there was no evidence of the transaction’s completion or a competent authority's order.

The petitioners challenged this as an overreach of the Collector's jurisdiction.

1. Whether the District Collector, while exercising powers under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, has the jurisdiction to reject NA permission by inquiring into the historical validity of titles or mortgage transactions that have attained finality in revenue records.

2. Whether the "legal occupancy" of the applicant is the primary criterion for granting NA permission regardless of pending title disputes or ancient revenue entries.

Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use.

Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat [2019 (4) GLR 2578], which holds that an inquiry under Section 65 is summary in nature and limited to determining if the applicant is a "legal occupant".

Division Bench ruling in LPA No. 1181 of 2025, which emphasized that authorities cannot "dig graves" by reopening decades-old revenue entries to dispute titles during NA applications.

The Court observed that the petitioners' names were clearly recorded in Village Form No. 7 and their status as occupants was established through registered sale deeds.

It found that the 1992 mutation entry (Entry No. 447) removing the mortgage charge had attained finality and was currently in operation.

The Court reasoned that the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by questioning a 30-year-old transaction, as Section 65 does not empower the authority to conduct a full-scale inquiry into the title or ownership.

Citing Tushar Ghelani, the Court held that the Collector’s role is strictly to verify if the applicant is an occupant and if the land is used for agriculture; the conversion permission does not confer title and thus does not require the Collector to resolve title doubts.

The Court held that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers and legal occupants entitled to have their application considered.

The matter was remanded to the District Collector, Kheda, with directions to decide a fresh application in accordance with the law and established precedents within the statutory period.