Collector Cannot Scrutinize Title or Decades-Old Tenancy Proceedings While Deciding Section 65 NA Use Applications

The petitioners applied for Non-Agricultural (N.A.) Use Permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code for land in Palanpur

The Respondent No. 3 (Collector) and Respondent No. 2 (Revisory Authority) rejected the application on May 19, 2023

The rejection was based on three grounds: (i) the need to inquire into the validity of 1970 tenancy proceedings; (ii) unclear agriculturist status of persons entered via Entry No. 4566 (dated 1982); and (iii) variations in the land area

The petitioners challenged these orders, arguing that the authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by questioning long-settled titles and status during an N.A. permission inquiry

1. Whether the authorities exceeded their jurisdiction under Section 65 of the Code by inquiring into the validity of old revenue entries and the agriculturist status of the occupants.

2. Whether the Collector can go beyond the scope of "occupancy" and "agricultural use" to examine the title of the applicant during N.A. permission proceedings.

The court applied Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the procedure for occupants of agricultural land to apply for permission to use land for non-agricultural purposes

Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat [2019 (4) GLR 2578], which established that the Collector’s inquiry under Section 65 is limited to verifying if the applicant is the "occupant" in the revenue records and if the land is held for agriculture; it is not an adversary proceeding to determine title

Division Bench ruling in LPA No. 1181 of 2025, which prohibited "digging graves" by questioning decades-old revenue entries to reject N.A. applications

The court reasoned that under Section 65, the Collector possesses limited powers to conduct a summary inquiry regarding legal occupation and current land use

In this case, the authorities "cross-utilized" powers by dwelling into the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act to question a family arrangement (Entry No. 4566) certified in 1982

The court noted that since no tenancy proceedings had ever been initiated to challenge the petitioners' status as agriculturists, the Collector could not use an N.A. application as a pretext to reopen settled transactions from 1970 or 1982

Citing Tushar Ghelani, the court emphasized that Section 65 does not empower the Collector to undertake a title inquiry or conclude regarding the legality of the occupant's ownership

The matter was remanded to the District Collector, Banaskantha. The court directed that any fresh application for N.A. Use Permission be decided strictly in accordance with the principles of Section 65 and the cited precedents within the statutory period. The petition was partly allowed