Scope of Section 65 Inquiry Prohibits Rejection of NA Permission Based on Pending Tenancy Doubts

The petitioner, an agriculturist, purchased land bearing Survey No. 442 at Village Vekra, Taluka Kadi, via a registered sale deed dated 19.07.2023

Revenue Entry No. 6320 was mutated, noting it was subject to the outcome of tenancy proceedings against the vendor, Sandeepkumar Agarwal

On 27.04.2024, the petitioner applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) use permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (GLRC)

The respondent No. 2 rejected this application on 03.07.2024, citing a negative opinion from the Mamlatdar, doubts regarding the vendor’s agriculture status (Entry No. 3362), and pending litigations before the High Court

Simultaneously, on 26.12.2023, the Mamlatdar (Respondent No. 3) passed an order prohibiting transfer or sale of several land parcels, including the petitioner's, based on a 1991 finding that the vendor's father was a non-agriculturist

1. Whether the revenue authorities can reject an application for Non-Agricultural (NA) permission under Section 65 of the GLRC based on disputes regarding the title or the agricultural status of the predecessor-in-title.

2. Whether the restrictive order dated 26.12.2023 was sustainable against the petitioner when passed without notice or opportunity of hearing.

The Court primarily applied Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which mandates that the Collector conduct a summary inquiry to verify if the applicant is an "occupant" of the land

It relied on the precedent Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat [2019 (4) GLR 2578], which established that the scope of inquiry under Section 65 is limited to occupancy and use, and the Collector cannot adjudicate upon complex questions of title or validity of prior revenue entries

The court also upheld the principle of natural justice, requiring that a registered owner be heard before adverse orders affecting their property rights are passed

The Court observed that the petitioner is a "bona fide purchaser" by way of a registered sale deed that remains valid and uncancelled by any civil court

The Court held that the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by "digging graves" into thirty-year-old revenue entries and tenancy status of predecessors to deny NA permission

Under Section 65, the authority only needs to satisfy itself that the applicant is the occupant; the petitioner’s status as an agriculturist was not in doubt, and they held an independent certificate of agriculture

The order dated 26.12.2023 was found to be procedurally flawed as it was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner, despite the authorities being aware of his registered ownership

The Court noted that the very tenancy proceedings used as a ground for rejection were already stayed by the High Court in related petitions

The Court held that while the petitioner remains bound by the final outcome of any pending tenancy proceedings, such proceedings cannot stall the NA conversion process if the applicant is the lawful occupant. The respondent authorities were directed to consider any fresh NA application filed by the petitioner strictly in accordance with the statutory mandate of Section 65 of the GLRC and the principles laid down in Tushar Ghelani. Rule was made absolute.