### Collector cannot deny Non-Agricultural conversion based on title disputes or unrelated pending litigation against predecessors.

The petitioner, Maulik Yogeshkumar Shah, purchased agricultural land via a registered sale deed on March 6, 2020, and was subsequently recorded as an agriculturist occupant.

He filed two applications under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, seeking Non-Agricultural (N.A.) Use Permission.

The District Collector of Kachchh "consigned to file" (effectively rejected) these applications on March 6, 2023, and May 15, 2025.

The rejections were based on the grounds that a proposal existed to challenge a related SSRD order before the High Court and that suo-motu proceedings regarding the "agriculturist status" of the vendor's brother (not the petitioner) were pending.

The petitioner challenged these orders as being outside the scope of Section 65.

1. Whether the Collector can reject or "file" an N.A. permission application under Section 65 based on pending litigation or title disputes involving the vendor's relatives.

2. Whether the scope of inquiry under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, includes a deep inquiry into the title or historical revenue entries of the land.

Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the conversion of agricultural land for other uses.

The Collector’s inquiry under Section 65 is limited to verifying if the applicant is the "occupant" in the revenue records and if the land is held for agriculture, as established in Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (2019).

N.A. applications cannot be rejected by "digging graves" of old revenue entries or based on title caveats when the applicant holds a valid registered sale deed, as held in LPA No. 1181 of 2025.

Section 65 is not an adversary proceeding and does not empower the Collector to adjudicate complex questions of title or the validity of historical entries.

The Collector’s reliance on pending litigation against the vendor's brother was deemed irrelevant, as the petitioner’s own entry (No. 5180) and his predecessor's entry (No. 1062) had attained finality.

As long as the applicant is the legal occupant, the Collector should only summarily inquire into the legality of the occupation rather than using pending third-party proposals or distant litigation as a ground for refusal.

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated March 6, 2023, and May 15, 2025, and remanded the matter to the District Collector, Kachchh, with directions to decide any fresh or pending N.A. application strictly in accordance with the legal principles laid down in Tushar Ghelani.

Rule was made absolute.