Mutation entry error in favor of State cannot be grounds to deny temporary NA permission for land with clear private title.

The petitioner, a private limited company, sought to set up a windmill project under the State’s green energy policy dated 16.10.2023

For this purpose, the petitioner entered into registered lease deeds for land bearing Survey No. 47 (Old Survey No. 551) at Mouje Naliya Timbo

The petitioner’s application for Temporary Non-Agricultural (NA) use permission was rejected by the Deputy Collector, Bhachau, via order dated 21.01.2026

The rejection was grounded on the observation that the first mutation entry of the land reflected the State as the owner

the petitioner contended that an error in the original promulgation (Entry No. 129) had been rectified via Entry No. 212 on 01.02.1980, and the land had since been subject to several certified registered sales and bank mortgages

1. Whether the respondent authority erred in rejecting the Temporary NA permission by relying on an outdated or incorrect revenue entry despite subsequent rectifications and certified sale deeds

2. Whether the impugned order failed to consider the specific provisions of the Government Resolution dated 16.10.2023 regarding Temporary NA permissions for green energy projects

Section 135-L(2) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which empowers revenue authorities to rectify errors occurred in the record of rights

Government Resolution (GR) dated 16.10.2023 issued by the Revenue Department, specifically Clause (8), which mandates that during the subsistence of a temporary NA permission, the original lessor farmer continues to be the lawful holder and certain mutation entries are merely suspended, not cancelled

Article 226 of the Constitution of India to correct a move by an authority that was contrary to the factual record

The Court found that the Deputy Collector’s finding was factually contrary to the record

The court noted that while the original entry might have shown the State's interest, a rectification entry (No. 212) was made as far back as 1980 to correct this

This was followed by a chain of certified transactions: a 1981 sale to Makvana Bhima Arjan (Entry No. 244), multiple bank loans and discharges (Entry Nos. 539, 751, 1078), and a 2020 sale to Savabhai Arjanbhai Makvana (Entry No. 1093)

The Court highlighted that the Deputy Collector ignored Clause (8) of the 16.10.2023 GR, which protects the status of the lawful holder during the temporary NA period

Since the revenue records had consistently recognized private ownership for over four decades without being challenged in suo motu revision, the rejection based on the "first mutation entry" was legally unsustainable

The High Court quashed and set aside the Deputy Collector’s order. The petitioner was permitted to reapply for the Temporary NA permission. The respondent authority was directed to decide the fresh application in accordance with the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and relevant guidelines (dated 08.04.2024 and 18.11.2025) within a stipulated timeframe. Rule was made absolute to this extent.