Collector exercising Section 65 powers cannot adjudicate upon title or minor’s share in ancestral property.

The petitioners applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) Use Permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (GLRC), 1879, for land in Navsari

The District Collector rejected the application via order dated May 15, 2024, citing two primary reasons: first, that a minor held a share in the ancestral subject land, and second, questioning the validity of a Relinquishment Deed (Mutation Entry No. 5283) executed by co-owners in favor of the petitioners

The petitioners challenged this rejection as being beyond the jurisdiction of the Collector

1. Whether the District Collector, while exercising powers under Section 65 of the GLRC, has the jurisdiction to examine the title of the applicant or the validity of ancestral shares held by minors

2. Whether the presence of a minor's undivided interest in joint family property is a valid ground for rejecting NA permission under the Code

The court applied Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the conversion of agricultural land for other uses

It relied on the precedent Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat [2019 (4) GLR 2578], which established that the scope of inquiry under Section 65 is limited to verifying if the applicant is a "legal occupant" in actual possession

The court further referenced the Division Bench ruling in LPA No. 1181 of 2025, affirming that revenue authorities cannot "dig graves" by investigating decades-old entries or complex title disputes during NA proceedings

Additionally, the court noted that under Muslim Law, there is no prohibition against dealing with a minor’s undivided interest in joint family property that would automatically stall such administrative permissions

The court reasoned that the Collector overstepped the statutory mandate of Section 65 by acting as a civil court to adjudicate title and minor interests

It held that the Collector’s duty is a summary inquiry to ensure the applicant is an "occupant" (as defined in Section 3(16) of the Code) and that the land is being used for the intended purpose

The court observed that the Collector failed to appreciate that the petitioners were the recorded occupants via a registered Relinquishment Deed and Mutation Entry

By questioning the "ancestral" nature of the property and the share of the minor, the Collector ignored the settled legal position that the state cannot refuse NA permission based on potential title defects if the applicant is the current legal occupant

It held that the rejection was based on "erroneous grounds" and was "beyond jurisdiction"

The matter was remanded to the District Collector, Navsari, with directions to decide the NA application afresh strictly in accordance with Section 65 of the Code and the principles laid down in Tushar Ghelani, focusing solely on occupancy rather than title disputes. Rule was made absolute