Pendency of civil suits or revenue title disputes cannot bar the grant of NA permission under Section 65.

The petitioner, an occupant of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 512/p1 in Village Varsamedi, Kutch, applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879

By an order dated 08.12.2025, the District Collector rejected the application citing the pendency of three Revision Applications before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD), an ongoing civil suit (RCS No. 207 of 2024), and third-party objections

The petitioner challenged this rejection, asserting that the SSRD proceedings concerned a different parcel of land and that a pending civil suit is not a legal bar to granting NA permission

1. Whether the pendency of a civil suit or revenue proceedings regarding title acts as a bar to the Collector’s jurisdiction to grant Non-Agricultural (NA) permission under Section 65 of the Code

2. Whether the Collector is empowered to conduct a deep inquiry into the title of the occupant during N.A. permission proceedings

Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the conversion of agricultural land use

Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (2019) 4 GLR 2578, which established that Section 65 inquiries are administrative, non-adversarial, and limited to verifying the "occupant" status rather than absolute title

Supreme Court decision in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (1969) 2 SCC 187, holding that revenue authorities should not adjudicate serious title disputes but refer parties to a competent Civil Court

The court reasoned that the Collector exceeded their jurisdiction by rejecting the application based on pending litigation and title disputes. Under Section 65, the authority’s "summary inquiry" is limited to determining if the applicant is the lawful occupant in possession

The High Court observed that the keywords in Section 65 are "occupant" and "holding," and since the petitioner was in actual possession and the revenue record reflected their name, the administrative requirement was met

The court noted that because NA permission is non-adversarial, the mere pendency of a civil suit—without an express stay order from a competent court—cannot stall the administrative process

The court criticized the respondent for "digging graves" by investigating decades-old entries and title history, which falls outside the scope of Section 65

It held that the denial of NA permission based on a "purportedly defective title" or pending civil litigation constitutes a transgression of jurisdictional limits

The High Court directed that if the petitioner files a fresh application, the Collector must decide it strictly in accordance with the principles laid down in Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani, focusing on occupancy rather than title disputes. The petition was allowed and rule made absolute