Deficit Stamp Duty Cannot Be a Valid Ground for Rejecting Non-Agricultural Use Permission

The petitioner, Sonal Raju Shah, is the owner of land bearing Survey No. 59/1 in Village Kalali, Vadodara, and has held a valid Non-Agricultural (NA) use permission since 2012

Following a partition and mutation entry (No. 3019), the petitioner applied for a "revised" NA permission under Section 65A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879

The District Collector, Vadodara, rejected the application vide order dated 18.11.2023, primarily based on a negative opinion from the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty, regarding alleged deficit stamp duty on the previous mutation entry

The petitioner challenged this rejection as being beyond the Collector’s jurisdiction.

1. Whether the District Collector has the jurisdiction to reject an application for revised NA permission under Section 65A of the Code based on pending stamp duty proceedings or alleged deficits in stamp duty

2. Whether the Collector exceeded the scope of inquiry by considering survey numbers not subject to the application and delving into fiscal disputes handled by other authorities

The court applied Section 65A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the change of use from one non-agricultural purpose to another

It relied on the precedent set in 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 the agricultural nature of the land, expressly prohibiting the Collector from adjudicating title disputes or extraneous matters

The court also applied Laxmi Associates v. Collector, Vadodara (2006), holding that revenue authorities cannot cancel entries or reject permissions based on assumptions regarding other enactments (like the Stamp Act) without specific authority under the Code

The court reasoned that the District Collector’s primary duty under Section 65 (and by extension 65A) is to verify if the applicant is the "occupant" of the land

In this case, the petitioner’s status as occupant was undisputed, as was the existence of a valid 2012 NA permission

The court found that the Collector committed an error of jurisdiction by treating the NA application as an "adversary proceeding" concerning stamp duty

Specifically, even if stamp duty proceedings were pending, they fall under a separate statutory framework (the Gujarat Stamp Duty Act) and cannot serve as a legal basis for withholding land use permissions under the Revenue Code

Furthermore, the court noted that the Collector mistakenly included survey numbers in the rejection that were not even part of the partition in question, demonstrating a failure to apply his mind to the facts

The court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2023

It directed the petitioner to apply afresh for revised NA permission and ordered the District Collector to decide the application strictly within the statutory ambit of Section 65A and in accordance with the principles of Tusharbhai Ghelani within the prescribed statutory period