Scope of Inquiry under Section 65 of Land Revenue Code Cannot Extend to Stamp Duty Disputes or Title Verification.

The petitioner, owner of land bearing Survey No. 59/2 in Village Kalali, Vadodara, sought revised Non-Agricultural (NA) permission under Section 65A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879

The petitioner had already obtained a valid NA permission in 2012

However, the District Collector, Vadodara, vide order dated 20.11.2023, rejected the application ("filed" it) based on a negative opinion from the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty, regarding alleged deficit stamp duty on Mutation Entry No. 3019

Separate proceedings for the recovery of stamp duty (approx. ₹94 Lakhs) were pending

The petitioner challenged this rejection as being beyond the Collector's jurisdiction

1. Whether the District Collector has the jurisdiction to reject an application for revised NA permission under Section 65A based on pending stamp duty disputes or doubts regarding title

2. Whether the scope of inquiry under Section 65/65A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code includes an adjudication of fiscal liabilities or title defects

Section 65 and 65A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which govern the use of land for non-agricultural purposes

Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat [2019 (4) GLR 2578], which established that the Collector's inquiry is limited to the applicant's status as an "occupant" and cannot extend to title disputes

Laxmi Associates v. Collector, Vadodara [2006 (3) GLR 1982], holding that revenue authorities cannot cancel entries or deny permissions based on assumptions of violations of other enactments (like the Stamp Act) without following the specific procedure prescribed under those Acts

The Court reasoned that Section 65/65A is not an adversary proceeding and the Collector’s role is limited to verifying whether the applicant is the "occupant" of the land as per revenue records

The Court found that the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by considering the deficit stamp duty as a ground for rejection, as the Stamp Act provides its own machinery for recovery

Furthermore, the Collector failed to verify that the stamp duty dispute pertained to a family partition involving different survey numbers, not all of which were subject to the current application

Rejection based on "digging graves" of old revenue entries or collateral fiscal disputes was held to be a transgression of the limits of jurisdiction

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2023. The petitioner was granted liberty to apply afresh for revised NA permission, and the District Collector was directed to decide the same strictly within the ambit of Section 65A and the ratio of Tusharbhai Ghelani within the statutory period. Rule was made absolute