Collector cannot examine historical title defects or exercise powers beyond Section 65 during N.A. permission inquiries.

The petitioner purchased agricultural land via a registered sale deed on May 17, 2025

This transaction was recorded in mutation entry No. 6814 and certified by the Mamlatdar on July 2, 2025

Previously, on May 2, 2011, the Mamlatdar of Dabhoi had passed an order removing restrictions on the land under Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, an order that attained finality

On September 14, 2025, the petitioner applied for Non-Agriculture (NA) use permission under Section 65 of the Code.

The Resident Additional Collector rejected the application on October 30, 2025, asserting that the 2011 removal of restrictions and a 1994-95 mutation entry were contrary to law as they lacked prior permission from the Collector

Whether the Collector, while exercising powers under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, can reject NA permission by reopening decades-old revenue entries or questioning the legality of the occupant's title.

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

The precedent Tushar Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (2019), which established that Section 65 proceedings are not adversarial and that the Collector's inquiry is limited to verifying if the applicant is a "lawful occupant" based on revenue records

The principle from Letters Patent Appeal No. 1181 of 2025, affirming that authorities cannot "dig graves" by scrutinizing the history of a title or entries that have attained finality when processing NA applications

The Court reasoned that the Collector exceeded the statutory jurisdiction provided under Section 65 of the Code

The Mamlatdar’s 2011 order removing Section 73AA restrictions was final, and the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser with a certified mutation entry and a valid agriculturist certificate

Citing Tushar Ghelani, the Court emphasized that Section 65 does not empower the Collector to undertake a full-scale inquiry into the title or ownership

The High Court criticized the practice of rejecting NA permissions based on alleged illegalities from the 1980s or 1990s, noting that the revenue authority's role is merely to verify current occupancy and intended use

Since the registered sale deed remained valid and no competent court had cancelled it, the Collector had no authority to dispute the petitioner's status as an "occupant"

It held that the authority acted in excess of its powers by questioning the 2011 order and ancient revenue entries.

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application for NA permission and directed the competent authority to decide the same strictly in accordance with the statutory limits of Section 65 and the ratio in Tushar Ghelani