Collector Cannot Inquire Into Title or Collateral Statutory Proceedings While Granting Non-Agricultural Use Permission

The petitioners filed an online application seeking Non-Agricultural (NA) Use Permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, for land in Vadodara.

The respondent No. 2 (District Collector) rejected the application via order dated 28.05.2024 on the grounds that: (a) the Mamlatdar had not provided a clear report, (b) there was a negative opinion regarding tenancy proceedings, (c) the petitioners' status as agriculturists was unclear, and (d) the application was barred by the Fragmentation Act.

The petitioners challenged this, noting that a certified Mutation Entry (No. 10477) confirmed the transaction was between agriculturists and that previous Fragmentation Act proceedings had already attained finality in their favor via an order dated 13.10.2025.

1. Whether the District Collector exceeded the jurisdictional scope of Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code by rejecting NA permission based on title disputes, agriculturist status, and tenancy opinions.

Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the procedure for an "occupant" to seek permission to use agricultural land for other purposes.

The Collector’s inquiry under Section 65 is limited to verifying if the applicant is the lawful occupant in revenue records and cannot extend to a full-scale inquiry into title or historical revenue entries, as established in Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat [2019 (4) GLR 2578].

Authorities are prohibited from "digging graves" by reviving 30-year-old revenue entries to deny NA permission, as per the Division Bench ruling in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1181 of 2025.

The Court found that the Collector transgressed his jurisdiction by venturing into areas beyond the scope of Section 65.

The Court observed that the petitioners were the registered occupants/owners via a sale deed that had not been cancelled by any competent court.

The Collector erred by basing the rejection on "negative opinions" from the Mamlatdar regarding tenancy and fragmentation laws, especially since the Fragmentation Act proceedings had already attained finality.

Following the Tushar Ghelani ratio, the Court reasoned that Section 65 is not an adversary proceeding; the Collector is only required to verify occupancy and the current use of land, not to adjudicate complex questions of title or status which fall under the purview of Civil Courts or specific tribunals.

The Court noted that the Collector ignored settled law by questioning 30-year-old revenue history.

The impugned order dated 28.05.2024 was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the District Collector, Vadodara, with a direction to decide the petitioners' application afresh within the statutory period.

The petition was partly allowed, and Rule was made absolute.