Collector cannot refuse NA permission on the ground that a final tenancy regularization order remains unreviewed.

The petitioner applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) permission and the determination of premium under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act on August 20, 2024.

This was initially rejected on October 22, 2024, due to a negative opinion regarding the agricultural status of a previous purchaser.

Subsequently, the petitioner paid the required premium, and the transaction was regularized via an order dated December 31, 2024, under Section 63(A)(B) of the Tenancy Act.

Despite this regularization, a fresh application filed on October 10, 2025, was consigned to 'file' (effectively rejected) by the District Collector on November 25, 2025, on the grounds that the regularization order dated December 31, 2024, had not been "reviewed".

Whether the respondent authority was justified in declining to process the NA permission application on the grounds that a prior regularization order under the Tenancy Act had not been reviewed.

Section 43 and Section 63(A)(B) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which govern the restriction on transfers of land and the regularization of such transfers upon payment of a premium.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India to correct an arbitrary administrative action based on an erroneous legal premise.

The court reasoned that the District Collector’s decision to consign the application to 'file' was based on an "erroneous ground".

It noted that the petitioner had already complied with the statutory requirements by depositing the premium, and a competent authority had officially regularized the transaction through Case No. TENANCY-63AB/AMD/8/2024.

Since that regularization order had attained finality and had not been set aside, the respondent authority could not legally refuse to process the NA permission by claiming that the regularization order required a "review" before the application could be considered.

The court found the authority’s refusal to exercise its jurisdiction to be an error of law requiring judicial interference.

The court held that the refusal to consider the application was legally unsustainable.

It directed the respondent authority to decide the petitioner’s application for payment of premium under Section 43 and the grant of Non-Agricultural (NA) use permission afresh, in accordance with the law, within the statutory period.

Rule was made absolute.