Scope of Inquiry Under Section 65 of Gujarat Land Revenue Code Cannot Extend to Questioning Title or Past Revenue Entries

The petitioners purchased a parcel of old tenure land (Survey No. 1305, etc.) in Village Rancharda, Gandhinagar, via a registered sale deed dated 20.02.2018

A promulgation entry (No. 10905) confirming their status was certified on 29.07.2020 and attained finality

Previous proceedings under Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act against the predecessors were dropped in 2016

Despite these facts, the District Collector, Gandhinagar, repeatedly rejected the petitioners' applications for Non-Agricultural (N.A.) permission (six orders between 2020 and 2025) on the grounds that the predecessors’ agricultural status was questionable and based on negative opinions from authorities

The petitioners challenged these rejections under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether the District Collector, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, can reject N.A. permission by inquiring into the title of the land or the agricultural status of predecessors-in-title.

2. Whether the repeated rejection of the N.A. application based on settled revenue entries and concluded tenancy proceedings was legally sustainable.

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

The scope of inquiry under Section 65 is limited to verifying if the applicant is the "occupant" and "holder" of the land as defined by Sections 3(12) and 3(16) of the Code

Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat [2019 (4) GLR 2578], which establishes that the Collector cannot resolve title disputes or "dig up graves" of old revenue entries during N.A. proceedings

State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha [(1969) 2 SCC 187], affirming that revenue authorities should not decide serious questions of title

The court found that the District Collector exceeded the jurisdictional limits of Section 65 by scrutinizing the validity of 30-year-old revenue entries and the historical agricultural status of the sellers

The court reasoned that since the petitioners are the current occupants via a registered sale deed (which has not been cancelled by a civil court) and the promulgation entry has attained finality, the Collector had no authority to reject the application based on "clouds" over the predecessor's title

The court noted that the Collector ignored the fact that Section 84-C tenancy proceedings had already been dropped, and thus there was no legal basis to claim the status was in doubt

By citing the Division Bench in LPA No. 1181 of 2025, the court emphasized that such "repetitive" and "baseless" rejections constitute a failure to apply the settled legal position

The Court quashed and set aside the six impugned orders dated between 10.11.2020 and 17.07.2025. It directed that if the petitioners file a fresh application, the respondent authority must consider it strictly in accordance with the statutory mandate of Section 65 and the ratio in Tusharbhai Ghelani, focusing only on the occupancy of the applicant and the intended land use rather than historical title issues. The petition was partly allowed, and Rule was made absolute