Gujarat HC Sends Tribal Petitioners’ NA-Permission Bid Back, Saying Section 65 Does Not Let Collector Decide Title

The petitioners challenged the Collector, Bharuch’s order dated 2 March 2026 rejecting their application under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, for non-agricultural (NA) permission.

The Collector relied on uncertainty regarding title, an adverse opinion of the ALT, and the failure to address grounds underlying an earlier rejection.

The land had been transferred by sale deed in 1967 and was subsequently recorded in the name of the petitioner’s father by revenue Entry No. 1736, based on a registered sale deed dated 20 March 1986.

The petitioners relied on a certificate showing that the petitioner belonged to a Scheduled Tribe.

They sought to have the rejection set aside and the application reconsidered without treating title uncertainty as a bar.

Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, concerns an occupant’s application to use agricultural land for a non-agricultural purpose.

Sections 3(11) and 3(16) inform the inquiry into whether the applicant is an occupant or holder; the Collector’s inquiry under Section 65 does not extend to adjudicating title.

The Court relied on Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat, as quoted in the judgment, for the principle that an applicant need not establish ownership to seek NA permission and that the Collector cannot determine title under Section 65.

It also relied on Rajendra Mulchand Verma v. State of Gujarat for the principle that the Collector cannot exercise powers under another revenue law while deciding a Section 65 application.

The Division Bench decision in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1768 of 2024 stated that, on its facts, a subsequent transfer restoring tribal land to a tribal removed the basis for proceedings alleging breach of Section 73AA; the Court also considered Government circulars dated 7 and 15 October 2026 concerning the processing of NA applications and compliance with High Court decisions.

The Collector’s stated grounds included uncertainty over title and an adverse ALT opinion, matters that could not, by themselves, be used to determine the petitioners’ entitlement under Section 65 by undertaking a title inquiry or exercising powers under another revenue law.

The Court considered that the Collector should have addressed the cited precedents, the Government circulars, and the petitioner’s Scheduled Tribe certificate when reconsidering the application.

It did not, however, decide the merits of the title or the application, leaving the parties’ contentions open for consideration by the Collector.

The Collector was directed to complete the reconsideration within three months.

The Court expressly made no determination on the merits, and Rule was made absolute to that extent.