Collector Cannot Reject Non-Agricultural Use Permission Based on Deficit Stamp Duty or Pending Title Disputes

The petitioner, owner of land bearing Survey No. 58/2 in Vadodara, had obtained Non-Agricultural (NA) permission in 2012

Following a family partition and relinquishment of rights by heirs, the petitioner applied for revised NA permission under Section 65A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code on 07.10.2023

The District Collector, Vadodara, passed an order dated 21.11.2023 "filing" (rejecting) the application based on a negative opinion from the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty, regarding alleged deficit stamp duty on Mutation Entry No. 3019

Separate proceedings for the recovery of ₹94,07,917/- in stamp duty had already been initiated

1. Whether the District Collector has the jurisdiction to reject an application for revised NA permission under Section 65A based on pending stamp duty proceedings or disputes regarding the title history

2. Whether the Revenue Authority can exercise powers under one enactment (Stamp Act) while proceeding under another (Land Revenue Code) to deny non-agricultural use

Section 65 and 65A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which govern the use of land for non-agricultural purposes

Revenue authorities cannot cancel entries or deny permissions by assuming violations of separate enactments, as established in Laxmi Associates v. Collector, Vadodara (2006)

The scope of inquiry under Section 65 is limited to the "occupancy" of the land and does not empower the Collector to adjudicate on complex title disputes or collateral fiscal issues, per Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (2019)

The Court reasoned that the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by considering the deficit stamp duty as a ground for rejection. Under Section 65A, the authority must primarily verify if the applicant is the "occupant" of the land as per revenue records

The Court noted that the petitioner already held a valid NA permission from 2012 and the current application was merely for a revised use. By relying on a negative opinion regarding stamp duty—for which separate legal proceedings were already underway—the Collector improperly conflated fiscal recovery with land-use regulation

The Court further observed that the Collector failed to verify that the alleged stamp duty deficit only pertained to seven out of eighteen survey numbers, mistakenly applying the objection to the petitioner’s specific land

Following Raghav Natha, the Court emphasized that if a dispute is serious, the authority should refer parties to a competent court rather than deciding title or collateral legalities within a summary revenue inquiry

The High Court quashed and set aside the Collector’s order dated 21.11.2023 and directed the District Collector to decide the petitioner’s fresh application for revised NA permission strictly within the scope of Section 65A and in accordance with the principles in Tushar Ghelani, ignoring the collateral stamp duty dispute, within the statutory period