Scope of Section 65 Inquiry Limited to Occupancy; Title Disputes or Potential Reviews Cannot Bar N.A. Permission

The petitioners applied for Non-Agricultural (N.A.) use permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, for land previously converted to "old tenure" by a Deputy Collector's order dated 12.11.2008

The District Collector, Banaskantha, rejected/consigned the applications to "file" via impugned orders dated 23.01.2025 and 19.03.2025

The primary ground for rejection was uncertainty regarding whether the 2008 order converting the land to old tenure had been, or would be, taken into suo motu review or revision by the authorities

1. Whether the Revenue Authorities can reject an N.A. permission application based on the mere possibility of a future review or revision of a decade-old tenure conversion order

2. Whether the Collector, while exercising power under Section 65 of the Code, is empowered to conduct a deep inquiry into the title of the occupant or the history of revenue entries

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

It relied on the doctrine established in Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (2019) 4 GLR 2578, which holds that N.A. proceedings are not adversarial and the Collector's inquiry is limited to verifying whether the applicant is the "occupant" in the revenue records

It further followed the Supreme Court precedent in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (1969) 2 SCC 187, establishing that revenue authorities should not decide serious questions of title in N.A. applications but should refer parties to a Civil Court

The Court observed that the 2008 order converting the land to old tenure had attained finality, as no actual review proceedings were pending.

The Collector’s decision to consign the application to the "file" based on the hypothetical possibility of a future revision was termed "contrary to the powers provided under Section 65" and based on mere "surmises"

Citing the Tusharbhai Ghelani ratio, the Court reasoned that Section 65 only requires the applicant to be an "occupant" as defined under Section 3(16); it does not authorize the Collector to "dig graves" by scrutinizing 30-year-old revenue history or questioning title once a registered sale deed exists

The Court noted that the authorities failed to apply their minds to the settled legal position that N.A. permission cannot be withheld due to lingering doubts about prior revenue entries that have not been legally challenged

The Court held that N.A. permission cannot be denied based on the potential for future review of old revenue orders.

The Collector was directed to reconsider the petitioners' application strictly in accordance with Section 65 and relevant Government Resolutions (specifically G.R. dated 08.04.2025). The petition was allowed, and rule was made absolute.