Inquiry under Section 65 of NL Code is limited to occupancy and cannot extend to title disputes.

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

The respondent No. 2 (District Collector, Gandhinagar) rejected the application via an order dated 28.03.2024, citing negative opinions from the Mamlatdar & ALT and the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), who suggested the land might be of "restricted tenure"

The petitioners’ title is based on heirship entries (No. 7593 and 7594) and relinquishment entries following their father’s death in 2001

The petitioners challenged this rejection, arguing the Collector exceeded his summary inquiry powers

1. Whether the Collector, while exercising power under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, can reject NA permission based on doubts regarding the nature of tenure or title rather than mere occupancy.

2. Whether negative opinions from revenue subordinates regarding potential tenure restrictions are valid grounds for denial of NA permission when the applicant is a recorded occupant.

Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which mandates that the Collector must grant permission if the "occupant" of agricultural land wishes to put it to non-agricultural use, provided certain conditions are met

Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat [2019 (4) GLR 2578], which established that Section 65 proceedings are not adversarial and the Collector cannot examine title or ownership beyond verifying "occupancy" via revenue records

Division Bench ruling in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1181 of 2025, which held that internal revenue doubts regarding legality of old entries (30+ years) cannot be a basis for rejecting NA applications

The court found the Collector’s rejection "erroneous" and "contrary to facts" reasoning that under Section 65, the Collector’s inquiry is limited to whether the applicant is the "occupancy" (as defined in Section 3(16)) and if the land is held for agriculture.

The court noted that the Collector failed to apply the law laid down in Tushar Ghelani, which prohibits "digging graves" into the history of land titles or 30-year-old revenue entries when processing NA applications.

Since no legal proceedings had been initiated to challenge the petitioners’ title or the tenure status, the Collector had no authority to reject the application based on mere "negative opinions" or "probabilities" of tenure violations.

The court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2024 and the matter was remanded to the respondent No. 2 (District Collector) with directions to decide the petitioners' application afresh within the statutory period. Rule was made absolute.