### Pendency of civil appeal relating to title does not bar grant of non-agricultural use permission.

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 respondent District Collector rejected the application on July 5, 2024, citing two grounds: (i) objections raised by a third party, Bhikhubhai Valjibhai Ramani, and (ii) the pendency of a civil appeal (CMA/DC/63/2024) before the District and Sessions Court.

Historically, the objector’s original civil suit (RCS No. 447/2007) challenging the petitioner's title was dismissed after a full trial on March 12, 2024.

Previous revenue challenges by the objector had also been rejected by the Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector, and Collector.

1. Whether the District Collector has the jurisdiction to reject an application for NA permission under Section 65 of the Code based on third-party objections or the pendency of civil litigation regarding title.

Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the procedure for an "occupant" to change land use from agriculture to non-agriculture.

The precedent set in Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat [2019 (4) GLR 2578], which established that the Collector’s inquiry under Section 65 is limited to verifying the applicant’s status as an "occupant" in revenue records and does not extend to adjudicating complex questions of title or ownership.

LPA No. 1181 of 2025, affirming that revenue authorities cannot "dig graves" by reviving decades-old disputes or using pending civil suits as a basis for rejection when no stay order exists.

The court reasoned that the Collector exceeded her jurisdiction by delving into title disputes rather than adhering to the criteria of Section 65.

The petitioner is the "occupant" by virtue of a registered sale deed and a certified revenue entry.

The court noted that Section 65 proceedings are not adversarial; the mere pendency of a civil appeal (CMA/DC/63/2024) does not bar NA permission, especially since the objector’s initial suit was dismissed and no stay order was granted by the appellate court.

The court emphasized that the Collector is only required to see if the applicant is the occupant and if the land is held for agriculture; the title remains subject to the final outcome of civil litigation, but NA permission cannot be stalled in the interim.

The court held that the Collector cannot reject NA permission solely due to pending civil litigation or title objections.

The matter was remanded to the District Collector, Rajkot, with directions to decide a fresh application by the petitioner in accordance with Section 65 and the settled ratio in the Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani case within the prescribed statutory period.

Petition partly allowed.