Scope of inquiry under Section 65 of Gujarat Land Revenue Code excludes scrutiny of title or historical revenue entries.

The petitioner purchased land bearing Final Plot No. 118 in Village Ognaj via a registered sale deed dated 10.06.2010, which was subsequently mutated in revenue records as Entry No. 9202

On 16.12.2023, the petitioner applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) use permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879

The Respondent No. 2 (Collector) rejected the application on 30.01.2024, citing that a predecessor-in-title had acquired the land through a Will, the mutation entry for which had been cancelled years prior, thereby questioning the petitioner’s clear title

1. Whether the Collector, while exercising powers under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, has the jurisdiction to examine the validity of the applicant's title or the legality of past revenue entries

Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the procedure for an "occupant" of agricultural land to seek permission for non-agricultural use

The court relied on the precedent of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (2019), which established that Section 65 proceedings are not adversarial and the Collector's inquiry is Limited to verifying if the applicant is a lawful "occupant" in possession

The court also followed the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (1969), holding that revenue authorities cannot decide serious disputes of title and must refer parties to a competent Civil Court

The Court reasoned that the key requirement under Section 65 is that the applicant be an "occupant" in actual possession

In this case, the petitioner held a registered sale deed that remained unchallenged in a Civil Court

The Collector erred by "travelling back in time" to scrutinize a 30-year-old mutation entry regarding a Will and using alleged past irregularities as a ground for rejection

The Court emphasized that the Collector transgressed the limits of jurisdiction by undertaking a title inquiry rather than focusing on the administrative requirements of NA conversion

Since the petitioner's registered sale deed was intact and certified, the Collector had no substantive basis to deny the application based on historical revenue entries

The Court quashed and set aside the Collector’s order dated 30.01.2024

It held that the denial of NA permission based on a purportedly defective title amounts to a jurisdictional error

The court directed the Respondent No. 2 to decide any fresh application by the petitioner for NA permission strictly in accordance with Section 65 and the ratio in Tusharbhai Ghelani, within the statutory period