Scope of Section 65 Inquiry Limited to Occupancy status; Land Area Discrepancies From Re-surveys Cannot Bar NA Permission.

The petitioner, an occupant of land admeasuring 5649 square meters in Patan, applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) Use Permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.

The Respondent No. 2 (District Collector, Patan) rejected the application vide order dated 07/05/2025.

The rejection was based on a negative report from the District Inspector of Land Records (D.I.L.R.), which noted that the land area had increased by more than 5% following a re-survey promulgation.

The petitioner challenged this, stating he sought permission only for his legally occupied and mutated area of 5649 square meters and held no claim over the excess land.

1. Whether the District Collector can reject an NA permission application under Section 65 of the Code based on land area discrepancies arising from a re-survey or concerns regarding title.

2. Whether the scope of inquiry under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, allows the authority to examine matters beyond the status of the applicant as an "occupant".

The court applied Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the procedure for an "occupant" to convert agricultural land to non-agricultural use.

It relied on the precedent set in Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat [2019 (4) GLR 2578], which established that the Collector’s inquiry under Section 65 is summary in nature, focusing solely on whether the applicant is an occupant in actual possession.

The court referred to the Division Bench ruling in LPA No. 1181 of 2025, emphasizing that authorities cannot "dig graves" by reviewing old revenue entries or title disputes to reject NA applications.

The court reasoned that under Section 65, the Collector is only required to verify if the applicant is the legal occupant as per revenue records and if the land is held for agriculture.

The court observed that the petitioner’s name was duly recorded in the 7/12 records for 5649 square meters.

The court held that the Collector erred by relying on the D.I.L.R. report regarding a 5% area increase, as such technical discrepancies or title-related doubts do not disentitle an occupant from NA permission.

Connecting to Tushar Ghelani, the court clarified that Section 65 is not an adversary proceeding and the Collector lacks the power to undertake a full-scale inquiry into the title or historical revenue anomalies.

Since the petitioner limited his claim to his purchased share, the ground for rejection was deemed outside the statutory scope of Section 65.

The court held that technical measurement increases post-survey cannot be used to deny NA permission to a bona fide occupant.

The matter was remanded to Respondent No. 2 with a direction to decide the petitioner's application afresh in accordance with the law and the principles laid down in Tushar Ghelani, within the statutory period, and rule was made absolute.