Section 6 of Saurashtra Estate Acquisition Act, 1952 requires confirmation of Vidi land sale, not prior permission.

The petitioner purchased "old tenure" VIDI land (Survey Nos. 206/P1/P2 and 206/P2) in Mouje: Khijadiya, Rajkot, via a registered sale deed on 03/02/2011.

The name was mutated in revenue records, and positive recommendations for post-facto permission were issued by the Deputy Collector and Collector between 2018 and 2024.

Despite a State Government communication dated 28/09/2024 directing the Collector to decide the matter in a timely manner, the Collector rejected the application on 18/07/2025, citing a 2014 Circular that allegedly required prior permission for such transactions.

1. Whether Section 6 of the Saurashtra Estate Acquisition Act, 1952, requires prior permission from authorities before the execution of a sale deed for VIDI land, or merely subsequent confirmation.

2. Whether the Collector's rejection based on a State Circular was legally sustainable in light of existing judicial precedents regarding VIDI land.

The court primarily applied Section 6 of the Saurashtra Estate Acquisition Act, 1952, which mandates that transfers of bid land/waste land are not effective unless "confirmed by an officer authorized".

The court relied on the doctrine that administrative circulars cannot override statutory provisions as interpreted by the judiciary.

The court further applied the precedent set in Special Civil Application No. 6799 of 2018 (confirmed in LPA No. 1361 of 2024), which established that Section 6 requires "confirmation" rather than "prior permission," and that such power is administrative in nature.

The Court reasoned that the plain language of Section 6 of the Act uses the word "confirmed" and conspicuously omits any requirement for "prior permission".

Following the Division Bench's interpretation, the Court noted that the validity of a sale attaches upon confirmation, which can be granted post-facto.

The court found that the Collector failed to follow the State’s own directive to act according to law and ignored the fact that a similarly situated parcel of land from the same original owner had already been granted post-facto permission.

The Court emphasized that revenue authorities are generally bound to record entries based on registered sale deeds unless the deed is set aside by a competent Civil Court.

The Court quashed and set aside the Collector’s order dated 18/07/2025.

It directed the respondent No. 2 (Collector, Rajkot) to reconsider the petitioner's application for post-facto permission in accordance with Section 6 and the cited judicial precedents within eight weeks. The petition was allowed and Rule made absolute.