Collector cannot inquire into ownership or title of land while processing non-agricultural permission under Section 65.

The petitioner, an agriculturist, purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No. 845 in Village Madodhar, Vadodara, via a registered sale deed dated 10.07.2024

Mutation entry No. 5848 was subsequently recorded in the revenue records

The petitioner applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, providing an affidavit (Parishisht – A) confirming his status as an agriculturist

the respondent authority rejected the application on 21.01.2026, questioning the agriculturist status of the petitioner’s predecessor based on old mutation entries from 2011 and 2020 (Entries No. 4111 and 5274)

1. Whether the Collector, while exercising powers under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, has the jurisdiction to reject NA permission by inquiring into the title or agricultural status of the predecessor-in-title.

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

definition of "occupant" under Section 3(16) and "holding" under Section 3(12) of the Code

Tushar Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (2019), which established that the Collector’s inquiry under Section 65 is summary and administrative, limited to verifying the applicant’s actual possession and the land's current use, rather than a deep dive into the title or historical revenue entries

the Collector is only required to verify if the applicant is the "occupant" in actual possession as per revenue records and whether the land is held for agricultural purposes

Citing Tushar Ghelani, the court emphasized that these proceedings are non-adversarial and the Collector cannot undertake an inquiry into the title

The respondent authority committed a jurisdictional error by "digging graves" to scrutinize the history of the land and the predecessor's status from entries that had already attained finality

The court held that such grounds for rejection were erroneous and contrary to the statutory mandate

The court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2026. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh application, which the respondent No. 2 is directed to decide in accordance with the law and within the statutory period. The petition was allowed and the Rule was made absolute