Pendency of a civil appeal does not bar the grant of Non-Agricultural Use permission under Section 65.

The petitioner, a registered sale deed holder of land in Village Kothariya, Rajkot, applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) Use Permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 on May 10, 2024.

The District Collector, Rajkot, "consigned the file" (effectively rejected the application) on July 5, 2024, citing two grounds: (i) objections raised by a third party, Bhikhubhai Valjibhai Ramani, and (ii) a pending civil appeal (CMA/DC/63/2024) filed by said third party.

Notably, the objector’s original suit for partition and declaration had already been dismissed after a full-fledged trial on March 12, 2024, and prior revenue challenges by the objector had reached finality against him.

1. Whether the revenue authority can reject or withhold NA Use Permission under Section 65 of the Code based on the pendency of a civil dispute or third-party objections regarding title.

2. Whether the District Collector exceeded her jurisdiction by delving into the question of title while processing an application for NA permission.

Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the conversion of agricultural land for other uses.

The precedent set in Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat [2019 (4) GLR 2578], which established that for Section 65, the authority must only verify if the applicant is the "occupant" (as defined in Section 3(16)) and "holder" (Section 3(12)) of the land.

The court also followed Letters Patent Appeal No. 1181 of 2025, affirming that the Collector cannot examine title or ownership, nor can they "dig graves" by reviewing decades-old revenue entries or pending civil litigation to deny NA permission.

The Court reasoned that the District Collector’s order was clearly beyond jurisdiction. Under Section 65, the authority is not an adjudicator of title; its inquiry is limited to whether the applicant is the recorded occupant and whether the land is assessed for agriculture.

The petitioner is the registered sale deed holder with a certified mutation entry (No. 2954), satisfying the criteria of an "occupant".

The pendency of a Civil Misc. Appeal (CMA/DC/63 of 2024) without an interim stay does not legalise the rejection of NA permission, as the civil court has not declared the petitioner's title invalid.

The court emphasized that Section 65 is not an "adversary proceeding" and objections from third parties yet to establish rights in a civil court cannot halt the statutory process.

The High Court allowed the petition in part and quashed the impugned order dated July 5, 2024. The matter was remanded to the District Collector, Rajkot, with a direction to decide the petitioner's application afresh in accordance with the law and the ratio laid down in Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani, within the statutory period.