Pendency of RTS Proceedings Cannot Be a Ground to Reject Non-Agricultural Permission Under Section 65 of Land Revenue Code

The petitioners are owners and occupiers of land bearing Survey/Block No. 105 (Final Plot No. 270) in Ahmedabad

They applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code on September 26, 2025

The respondent Collector rejected the application via an impugned order dated December 4, 2025, solely on the grounds that RTS proceedings (appeals challenging mutation entry nos. 1469 and 1470) were pending before the Prant Officer

These disputes involve objections by legal heirs of a deceased brother regarding relinquishment rights from 1979

1. Whether the Collector can reject an application for Non-Agricultural (NA) permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code solely on the grounds of pending RTS or revenue proceedings

The Court applied Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, which mandates that the Collector primarily verify if the applicant is an "occupant" of the agricultural land

It relied on the precedent Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (2019 (4) GLR 2578), which established that Section 65 does not empower the Collector to adjudicate complex questions of title or ownership

Furthermore, referencing State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (1969) 2 SCC 187 and Bhayabhai Vajshibhai Hathalia v. State of Gujarat (2012 (2) GLR 1741), the court affirmed that NA permission is attached to the land's use, not the person's absolute title, and revenue authorities should refer serious title disputes to a Civil Court rather than stalling administrative permissions

The Court reasoned that Section 65 proceedings are not adversarial in nature; hence, a third party claiming interest must seek an injunction from a Civil Court rather than relying on the Collector to block NA permission

The Court noted that the petitioners’ names were already in the revenue records, which prima facie established their status as "occupants"

By rejecting the application due to pending RTS appeals, the Collector "transgressed the limits of jurisdiction"

The Court emphasized that administrative development of land cannot be "throttled" simply because a revenue entry is under challenge, especially when no prohibitory order from a competent Civil Court exists

The High Court quashed and set aside the Collector’s order dated December 4, 2025

The Court directed that if the petitioners file a fresh application, the respondent authority must decide it strictly in accordance with the statutory dictum of Section 65 and the established legal principles within the statutory period

Rule was made absolute