Scope of Section 65 Inquiry Limited to Occupancy; Collector Cannot Reject NA Permission Based on Title Disputes or Pending Proceedings

The petitioner, a holder of a valid agriculturist certificate, purchased land bearing Survey No. 3628 in Visnagar, Mehsana, via a registered sale deed.

He applied for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural (NA) use under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.

The Respondent No. 2 (Collector) rejected/consigned the application to the file multiple times between 2023 and 2026.

The primary ground for rejection was the need to verify whether tenancy proceedings had been initiated pursuant to a Civil Court order recorded in a mutation entry.

The petitioner challenged these orders, asserting that no such proceedings were active and the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction.

1. Whether the Collector, while exercising power under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, has the jurisdiction to reject NA permission based on potential title disputes or pending verification of tenancy proceedings

2. Whether the impugned orders "consigning the application to file" on the grounds of verifying old revenue entries were legally sustainable

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

Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat [2019 (4) GLR 2578], which established that the scope of inquiry under Section 65 is limited to verifying if the applicant is the "occupant" in the revenue records and does not extend to adjudicating complicated questions of title or ownership.

State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha [(1969) 2 SCC 187], holding that revenue authorities should not decide title disputes but should instead refer parties to a competent Civil Court.

The Court reasoned that Section 65 is not an "adversary proceeding" and hinges on two terms: "occupant" and "holding".

Since the petitioner was the occupant via a registered sale deed and held a valid agriculturist certificate, the Collector’s duty was limited to a summary inquiry into lawful possession.

The Court found that the Collector "travelled back in time" to scrutinize 30-year-old revenue entries and potential tenancy issues without any actual proceedings being initiated against the petitioner's predecessor-in-title.

Referring to LPA No. 1181 of 2025, the Court criticized the "attitude of the officers" in repeatedly rejecting applications by "digging graves" of old entries despite the absence of substantive legal challenges to the title.

Consequently, the Collector's refusal to grant permission based on anticipated or pending verifications was deemed a "transgression of the limits of jurisdiction".

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 01.07.2023, 22.08.2023, 07.11.2023, 29.01.2024, 22.01.2025, and 27.01.2026. The Court directed the Respondent No. 2 (Collector) to reconsider any fresh application filed by the petitioner in accordance with the law laid down in Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani and to decide the same within the statutory time period. Rule was made absolute.