Valid non-agricultural conversion precludes authorities from invoking tenancy laws or challenging the holder’s prior agricultural status.

The petitioner purchased 62 non-agricultural (NA) residential plots from respondent No. 3 and another individual via a registered sale deed on August 7, 2006

The sellers had purchased the land (then agricultural) in 1997 and were subsequently granted NA conversion permission by the District Development Officer (DDO) on February 16, 2006

In 2010, the District Collector initiated an inquiry to identify landholders who were not "agriculturists of the State of Gujarat." While the Collector initially ordered the freezing of such accounts, a clarification was issued on December 18, 2010, stating that these directions would not apply to lands already converted to NA use

Despite this, and following a Mamlatdar’s order dropping proceedings against the respondent No. 3, the Collector exercised suo motu revision powers under Section 110 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958

In 2012, the Collector quashed the Mamlatdar’s order and vested the subject land in the State Government on the grounds that the predecessor-in-title was not a valid agriculturist

The petitioner, who was the registered owner at the time, was not joined as a party to these proceedings

1. Whether authorities can allege a breach of agricultural land laws after the land has been validly converted to non-agricultural (NA) use under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

2. Whether the exercise of suo motu revisionary powers after a delay of 5 to 14 years constitutes a "reasonable time" under the law.

3. Whether the impugned order was vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the non-joinder of the current registered owner.

The court primarily applied Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code regarding NA conversion and Section 110 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958, regarding revisionary powers

It relied on the precedent set in Ravhchand Manekchand Sheth v. State of Gujarat (2006) 2 GLR 1567, which established that once a valid NA permission is granted, the land ceases to be agricultural, and authorities are estopped from invoking agricultural laws against it

The court referred to Government Resolutions (GR) dated January 3, 1968, and February 3, 2005, which clarify that the provisions of the Tenancy Act do not apply to lands converted to NA use

The court also applied the established legal principle that suo motu powers must be exercised within a reasonable period when no limitation is prescribed by statute

The court reasoned that the Collector’s order was legally unsustainable on three primary grounds. First, it held that once the DDO granted NA permission in 2006, the land lost its agricultural character; thus, any subsequent inquiry into the "agriculturist" status of the previous owner was barred by the principle of estoppel

The court noted that the Collector’s own clarification in 2010 had explicitly exempted NA-converted land to avoid hardship

Second, the court found the timing of the suo motu intervention—initiated 14 years after the original transaction and 5 years after the petitioner’s purchase—to be unreasonable and contrary to settled law regarding the exercise of discretionary revisionary powers

Finally, the court observed a gross procedural error: the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser whose name was already mutated in the revenue records, yet the Collector failed to join him as a party or provide him an opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice

It held that the conversion of the land to NA use precluded the application of agricultural tenancy laws and that the delayed exercise of suo motu power was invalid

The court directed the restoration of all revenue entries pertaining to the petitioner’s land that had been cancelled pursuant to the quashed order and made the Rule absolute