Rejection of Section 63AA application for technical deficiencies does not preclude filing of a fresh application.

The Petitioner purchased agricultural land at Revenue Survey No. 64, Village Untiya (Kajapur), Vadodara, via a registered sale deed dated 12.03.2021 for industrial purposes under Section 63AA of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948

The Petitioner filed an online application on 06.04.2021 seeking a bona fide industrial use certificate.

The Collector, Vadodara, rejected the application on 22.10.2021, citing a negative opinion from the Mamlatdar and the non-submission of three years of audit reports

Although a subsequent application was purportedly allowed in 2026, the Petitioner challenged the initial rejection as arbitrary and beyond the Collector's jurisdiction

The State contended that the Petitioner ought to have filed a statutory appeal under Section 63AA(3)(d) instead of a writ petition

1. Whether the power exercised by the Collector under Section 63AA of the Act is administrative or quasi-judicial in nature

2. Whether the rejection of an application due to technical defects or procedural lapses precludes the applicant from filing a fresh application or necessitates a mandatory statutory appeal

Section 63AA of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which permits the sale of agricultural land for bona fide industrial purposes provided specific conditions regarding land area and location are met

Precedent set in M/s Rathore Steels v. State of Gujarat (SCA No. 8844 of 2024), which establishes that applications rejected for technical reasons do not bar fresh applications.

The Collector’s function under Section 63AA is administrative, focused on satisfaction of statutory parameters rather than adjudication

The Court reasoned that Section 63AA confers administrative power upon the Collector to verify if a land purchase aligns with industrial growth policies

Because the function is administrative, the principles of functus officio or the absolute bar of res judicata do not apply to the filing of subsequent applications

The Court observed that the 2021 rejection was based on "deficiencies" (such as missing audit reports) rather than a substantive finding on the merits of the "bona fide industrial purpose"

Procedurally, the Court found that requiring an appeal for a technical rejection would be contrary to the legislative intent of Section 63AA. Thus, an applicant remains entitled to cure technical defects and re-apply without being forced into litigation before the State Government

The Collector exercises an administrative function under Section 63AA, and a rejection on technical grounds does not prevent a fresh application

The Court directed the Collector, Vadodara, to consider and decide the Petitioner’s fresh application on its merits, strictly in accordance with the law and within the prescribed statutory period, without being influenced by the previous rejection. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs