Collector cannot reject Section 65 NA permission by examining title or alleged decades-old fragmentation breaches.

The petitioner, an agriculturist and occupant of land bearing Survey No. 483/P.2 in Village Amodara, applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, on July 21, 2024

The Collector of Gir Somnath, via an impugned order dated August 13, 2024, rejected the application (consigned it to file) on the grounds that Mutation Entry No. 344 (dated 1957) was in breach of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, thereby questioning the petitioner’s status as an agriculturist

No formal proceedings under the Fragmentation Act had been initiated against the petitioner

1. Whether the Collector, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, can reject NA permission based on alleged breaches of other enactments (like the Fragmentation Act) or disputes regarding the applicant's title

2. Whether an entry from 1957 that has attained finality can be used as a ground for rejection without any initiated legal proceedings

Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, emphasizing that the "occupant" of agricultural land is entitled to apply for NA permission

Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (2019), which established that the scope of inquiry under Section 65 is limited to the applicant’s status as an occupant and does not extend to adjudicating title or historical revenue entries

State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (1969), holding that revenue authorities should not decide serious disputes of title in NA permission proceedings

The court reasoned that under Section 65, the Collector is only required to verify if the applicant is the "occupant" in actual possession as per revenue records

The court found that the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by "digging graves" to investigate a 1957 mutation entry for alleged violations of the Fragmentation Act

Citing Tusharbhai Ghelani, the High Court noted that the NA process is not an adversary proceeding and the Collector cannot act as a civil court to determine the validity of the petitioner's title or historical illegalities that have not been challenged in appropriate legal forums

Since no proceedings under the Fragmentation Act were active, using a 67-year-old entry to deny a current NA application was deemed a "transgression of the limits of jurisdiction"

The court quashed and set aside the Collector’s order dated August 13, 2024 and remanded the matter to the Collector, Gir Somnath, for a fresh decision strictly in accordance with Section 65 of the Code and the principles laid down in the Tusharbhai Ghelani case