Collector cannot reject revised non-agricultural permission on grounds of deficit stamp duty or title disputes.

The petitioner purchased land bearing Survey No. 58 in Village Kalali, Vadodara, via a registered sale deed in 2009

In 2012, the District Collector granted valid Non-Agricultural (NA) permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879

Subsequently, the petitioner applied for revised NA permission for "multipurpose use" under Section 65A after a family partition

On 18.11.2023, the District Collector "filed" (rejected) the application, citing a negative opinion from the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty, regarding alleged deficit stamp duty on a past mutation entry (No. 3019) involving family members

The petitioner challenged this order as being beyond the Collector's jurisdiction

Section 65 and Section 65A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which govern the conversion of land use for occupants

Laxmi Associates v. Collector, Vadodara (2006), establishing that revenue entries are for fiscal purposes and do not determine title, nor can NA permission be denied on the assumption of violations of other enactments

Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (2019), which clarifies that the Collector’s inquiry is limited to whether the applicant is an "occupant" and cannot extend to title disputes or auxiliary legal proceedings

The court reasoned that the District Collector exceeded her jurisdiction by conflating revenue management with stamp duty recovery

Under Section 65/65A, the Collector’s role is limited to verifying whether 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 pending stamp duty inquiry was a separate proceeding under the Gujarat Stamp Duty Act, 1958, which could not serve as a legal bar to land-use permission

Furthermore, the Collector failed to appreciate that the stamp duty dispute only pertained to 7 out of 18 survey numbers and incorrectly applied the objection to the subject land

Following the Tusharbhai Ghelani precedent, the High Court emphasized that NA proceedings are not "adversary" and the Collector cannot "dig graves" of old revenue entries to deny permissions

The court directed the Respondent No. 2 (District Collector) to decide the petitioner's application for revised NA permission afresh under Section 65A of the Code, strictly following the legal principles laid down in Tusharbhai Ghelani, within the statutory period. Rule was made absolute.