Section 65B Permission Cannot Be Denied Due to Title Disputes if Section 89 Tenancy Certificate Is Valid.

The petitioner sought a certificate for industrial land use under Section 65B of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, for land bearing Survey No. 410/1

The petitioner already held a valid certificate for industrial use under Section 89 of the Tenancy Act, issued by the Assistant Collector on 23.06.2008

The District Collector, Kutch, rejected the Section 65B application via an order dated 14.07.2020, citing that the land title was not "clear" due to disputes regarding the original vendor's agriculturist status

During the pendency of this petition, the State challenged the 2008 Tenancy Act certificate before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD), but the SSRD did not entertain the challenge for want of jurisdiction

1. Whether the District Collector was justified in refusing a certificate under Section 65B of the Bombay Land Revenue Code on the grounds of "unclear title" despite a valid and subsisting industrial use certificate under Section 89 of the Tenancy Act

The court applied Section 65B of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the procedure for using land for bona fide industrial purposes

It also considered Section 89 of the Tenancy Act (specifically the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958), which regulates the transfer of agricultural land for industrial use

The court relied on the principle of finality of administrative orders, noting that once a competent authority grants permission under one statute (Tenancy Act) and that order remains intact, it cannot be ignored by another authority exercising powers under a related revenue statute

The court reasoned that the order dated 23.06.2008 granted by the Assistant Collector under Section 89 of the Tenancy Act, which certified the land for industrial purposes, remained valid and intact

The State’s attempt to challenge this status before the SSRD failed as the revision was not entertained

Consequently, the court found that the dispute regarding the vendor’s status—which occurred prior to the petitioner’s acquisition—became "inconsequential" once the statutory permission for industrial use had attained finality

The District Collector’s refusal to grant Section 65B permission based on "non-germane" grounds of title history was therefore legally unsustainable

It held that since the Section 89 Tenancy Act certificate is still in force, the application under Section 65B must be reconsidered afresh

The court remanded the matter to the District Collector, Kutch, with a direction to decide the petitioner’s application in accordance with the law and the settled legal position within three months. The petition was partly allowed, and the Rule was made absolute