Collector Cannot Inquire Into Title Nor Dig Up Decades-Old Revenue Entries While Processing Non-Agricultural Permission Under Section 65.

The petitioners purchased a parcel of land (Survey No. 255/1 paiki 13, admeasuring 8094 sq. mtrs.) via a registered sale deed

Revenue entries were duly mutated and certified in their names in 2024

The petitioners applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.

The Collector rejected the application on December 18, 2025, primarily based on a negative opinion from the Mamlatdar citing discrepancies in historical mutations (Entry Nos. 364 and 402) and pending litigation regarding the original larger tract of land from which this parcel was derived

1. Whether the Collector, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 65 of the Code, can reject NA permission based on historical title discrepancies or disputes involving predecessors-in-interest

2. Whether the scope of inquiry under Section 65 of the Code is limited to the applicant's status as a legal occupant and the agricultural nature of the land

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

Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat [2019 (4) GLR 2578], which established that Section 65 proceedings are not adversarial and do not authorize the Collector to adjudicate on complex questions of title

State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha [(1969) 2 SCC 187], affirming that if a title is seriously disputed, the revenue authority should refer parties to a Civil Court rather than deciding the title itself against the occupant

The Court reasoned that the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by "digging graves" into thirty-year-old revenue entries and historical disputes that did not involve the current petitioners

It was held that for the purpose of Section 65, the authority must only satisfy itself that the applicant is an "occupant" (as defined in Section 3(16)) and that the land is held for agriculture

Since the petitioners held a valid registered sale deed and their names were reflected in the 7/12 records, they were "occupants" whose application must be considered on its own merit

The Court emphasized that NA permission is administrative, and the existence of pending litigation or historical entry discrepancies is not a valid ground for rejection if the occupancy is prima facie legal

The High Court quashed and set aside the Collector’s order dated December 18, 2025. It directed the respondent authority to reconsider any fresh application filed by the petitioners strictly according to the statutory mandate of Section 65 and the established legal position within the prescribed statutory period. Rule was made absolute