Collector cannot reject NA permission based on deficit stamp duty or pending title disputes.

The petitioner, Sonal Raju Shah, sought revised Non-Agricultural (NA) permission under Section 65A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, for land in Village Kalali, Vadodara

The petitioner had held valid NA permission since 2012

the District Collector, Vadodara, vide an impugned order dated 24.01.2024, "filed" (rejected) the application

The rejection was based on a negative opinion from the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty, alleging deficit stamp duty regarding Mutation Entry No. 3019

The petitioner contended that the revenue authority failed to distinguish that the stamp duty issue pertained only to a family partition of seven survey numbers, which did not encompass all the land subject to the revised NA application

1. Whether the District Collector has the jurisdiction to reject an application for revised Non-Agricultural (NA) permission under Section 65A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code based on the pendency of stamp duty proceedings or disputes regarding the legality of past revenue entries

2. Whether the scope of inquiry under Section 65/65A of the Code permits the revenue authority to adjudicate on matters of title or fiscal deficits under other enactments

Section 65 and 65A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the "occupant's" right to change land use

revenue entries have primarily fiscal value and authorities cannot cancel entries or deny permissions by assuming transactions violate other specific enactments without following the procedure under those specific laws (as established in Laxmi Associates v. Collector, Vadodara (2006))

The primary doctrine followed was from Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (2019), which holds that the Collector’s inquiry under Section 65 is limited to verifying the applicant’s status as an "occupant" and cannot extend to inquiries into title or collateral legal disputes

The Court reasoned that the District Collector’s decision was "beyond jurisdiction" as it predicated the denial of NA permission on a deficit stamp duty report, which is a matter for separate proceedings by the competent stamp authority

The Court found that the respondent authority failed to verify whether the survey numbers in the NA application were actually the ones affected by the purported stamp duty deficit, noting a factual error where the Collector included survey numbers not part of the contested partition

Applying the Tusharbhai Ghelani ratio, the Court emphasized that Section 65 is not an "adversary proceeding" and does not empower the Collector to "dig graves" or travel back 30 years into the history of revenue entries to find faults unrelated to the occupant's current status

Since the petitioner was the undisputed occupant and owner by registered deed, the technical objection regarding stamp duty could not serve as a lawful barrier to land-use conversion

The Court quashed and set aside the District Collector's order dated 24.01.2024. The Court directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner’s application for revised NA permission afresh strictly within the parameters of Section 65A and the settled law in Tusharbhai Ghelani, within the statutory period. The petition was allowed and Rule made absolute