Collector cannot examine or conclude regarding land title while processing Non-Agricultural permission under Section 65.

The petitioners applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) permission under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code for land in Village Itola, Vadodara.

The Collector first rejected the application on June 13, 2024, citing a name discrepancy between the revenue records and the first petitioner’s Aadhaar card

The petitioner subsequently corrected his name via a Gazette notification (changing "Gupta" to "Patel") and refiled the application

On July 5, 2025, the Collector rejected the second application on the technical ground that the petitioner ought to have appealed the first rejection rather than filing a fresh application

The petitioners challenged these orders via a writ of certiorari.

The Court applied Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use

It relied heavily 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 whether the applicant is the "occupant" in the revenue records and cannot extend to a full-scale inquiry into title or ownership

The Court also referenced State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (1969), affirming that revenue authorities should refer serious title disputes to Civil Courts rather than deciding them during NA proceedings

The Court observed that the first rejection was based on a nomenclature anomaly which the petitioner subsequently cured through a legal Gazette notification

The Collector’s second rejection—based on the failure to file an appeal—was deemed "erroneous" because it ignored the fresh documentary evidence provided

Citing the Tusharbhai Ghelani ratio, the Court emphasized that Section 65 is not an adversary proceeding; the Collector is only required to verify if the applicant is the "occupant"

The Court critiqued the practice of revenue officers "digging graves" by raising historical or technical objections that do not affect the applicant's status as a bona fide occupant or registered owner

Since the petitioner provided the Gazette notification to resolve the identity discrepancy, the Collector's refusal to process the fresh application was a jurisdictional error.

The Court held that a fresh application is maintainable when the underlying cause for the initial rejection (identity discrepancy) has been legally rectified.

The Court directed the Collector to decide any fresh NA application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the law and the principles laid down in Tusharbhai Ghelani within the statutory period

The petition was partly allowed, and the rule was made absolute.