Collector cannot reject Non-Agricultural permission based on stamp duty disputes or pending title inquiries.

The petitioner originally purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No. 47 in Village Kalali, Vadodara, and obtained Non-Agricultural (NA) permission in 2012.

In October 2023, the petitioner applied for a revised NA permission under Section 65A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, for a change of use.

The District Collector, Vadodara, rejected the application on November 18, 2023, citing a negative opinion from the Deputy Collector regarding deficit stamp duty related to Mutation Entry No. 3019.

The petitioner challenged this order, contending that the entry relied upon concerned different survey numbers and that stamp duty issues are beyond the Collector's jurisdiction under Section 65.

1. Whether the District Collector has the jurisdiction to reject an application for revised NA permission based on alleged deficit stamp duty or disputes regarding revenue entries unrelated to the subject land.

2. Whether the inquiry under Section 65/65A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code includes the power to adjudicate upon title or fiscal liabilities like stamp duty.

Section 65 and 65A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the conversion of land use/change of use.

Laxmi Associates v. Collector, Vadodara [2006 (3) GLR 1982], which establishes that revenue authorities in RTS proceedings cannot cancel entries or reject permissions based on assumptions of violations of other enactments.

Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat [2019 (4) GLR 2578], affirming that the Collector’s scope of inquiry under Section 65 is limited to verifying the "occupant" status and cannot extend to titles, ownership disputes, or digging up old revenue entry history.

The court found that the District Collector’s rejection was based on an "erroneous ground" and a "cross-utilisation of powers".

The Collector failed to verify that Mutation Entry No. 3019—which triggered the stamp duty objection—pertained to only seven specific survey numbers, of which the land in question was not a part.

Applying the Tusharbhai Ghelani doctrine, the court reasoned that the Collector exceeded her jurisdiction; the law requires the authority to only verify if the applicant is an "occupant" as per revenue records. Fiscal issues like stamp duty are subject to separate proceedings and cannot be used as a "garb" to deny NA permission.

The court emphasized that the Collector cannot act as an adversary or adjudicator of title in a Section 65 proceeding.

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated November 18, 2023. The petitioner was granted liberty to apply afresh for revised NA permission under Section 65A, and the respondent no. 2 (District Collector) was directed to decide the application strictly in accordance with the law and the ratio of Tusharbhai Ghelani within the statutory period. Rule was made absolute.