### Exemption Certificate Under Section 63AA Requirements for Agricultural Land Totaling Less Than Ten Hectares Legal Headline: Certificate under Section 63AA of Tenancy Act cannot be rejected citing industrial commissioner clearance if land is below ten hectares.

The petitioner, a private limited company, challenged an order dated 20.01.2026 issued by Respondent No. 2 (Collector/Tenancy Authority).

The respondent had rejected the petitioner's application for a certificate under Section 63AA of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, regarding land at Revenue Survey No. 221, Village Ganpatpura, Taluka Karjan.

The rejection was based on the authority's assertion that the land exceeded 10 hectares, thereby requiring a certificate from the Commissioner of Industries rather than the local authority.

The petitioner contended via a reply dated 18.11.2024 that the land was actually less than 10 hectares.

1. Whether the respondent authority erred in rejecting the application under Section 63AA on the factual assumption that the land holding exceeded 10 hectares.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have their application reconsidered in light of evidence showing the land size is within the statutory limits for local adjudication.

The court applied Section 63AA of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which governs the sale of agricultural land for industrial purposes and specifies the competent authorities based on the size of the land holding.

The provision differentiates procedural requirements based on whether the land area is above or below the 10-hectare threshold.

The Court examined the petitioner’s submission that the land in question is less than 10 hectares, a fact previously stated in the petitioner’s reply to the authority on 18.11.2024.

The Court noted that the respondent authority failed to properly verify this factual claim before directing the petitioner to seek a certificate from the Commissioner of Industries.

Furthermore, the Court took cognizance of the petitioner's evidence that similar Section 63AA certificates had already been issued for adjoining survey numbers (203, 215, 218, 219, and 220), indicating a lack of consistency in the authority's approach.

Since the core reason for rejection—the size of the land—was contested with documentary evidence that the State could not controvert, the impugned order was found to be unsustainable.

The Court held that the rejection based on the 10-hectare threshold was improper given the petitioner's factual assertions.

The Court directed that if the petitioner files a fresh application, the respondent authority must decide it in accordance with the law within the statutory period.

Rule was made absolute.