Case at a Glance
A woman’s application to use her agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code was rejected, quashed by the High Court in March 2026, and then rejected again on largely the same grounds. The Gujarat High Court held that under Section 65 the Collector only has to check whether the applicant is an occupant and cannot inquire into title. Calling the repeated rejection a flagrant violation of its order, it quashed the fresh rejection, restored the application and directed the Collector to pay ₹1 lakh costs from his own salary.
The petitioner applied under Section 65 of the Gujarat (Bombay) Land Revenue Code for non-agricultural (NA) use of her agricultural land. Her first application of 19 December 2024 was rejected on 11 February 2025, on grounds including that earlier transfers by a cooperative society lacked permission under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and that her status as a farmer was unclear. In Special Civil Application No. 3097 of 2025, the High Court on 2 March 2026 quashed that rejection, relying on Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat, and directed a fresh decision within the statutory period.
She applied again in April 2026. On 6 August 2026 the Collector rejected the application again on largely the same grounds, citing negative opinions, a pending proceeding before the SDM and the need to decide whether the State would file a Letters Patent Appeal against the March judgment. No appeal had been filed in over seven months. The State told the Court that, on remand, the Collector would decide under a Revenue Department circular of October 2026.
The Key Question Before the Court
Could the Collector reject an NA application again on grounds the High Court had already found irrelevant, and does Section 65 allow an inquiry into the applicant’s title?
Section 65 Is Not a Title Inquiry
Relying on Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat and State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, (1969) 04 SC CK 0032, the Court explained that Section 65 requires the Collector to see whether the applicant is an occupant and whether the land is used for agriculture. “Nowhere is it contemplated in Section 65 that the Collector is empowered to undertake an inquiry into the title,” the Court said, adding: “It is sufficient for the purposes of Section 65, that the person applying for NA Permission is an occupant.”
Turning to the 6 August 2026 order, the Court held that the Collector had disregarded its earlier directions. “Flagrant violation of the Court’s order would reflect the attitude of the officer concerned,” it observed, and added: “This is not the first instance where the Collector has acted as a superpower authority.” A circular, the Court held, does not create new law and could not justify the repeated rejection. Government authorities facing difficulty with a court order must approach the court in time rather than ignore it.
What the Court Actually Held
- Under Section 65 of the Land Revenue Code, the Collector cannot inquire into title; it is enough that the applicant is an occupant.
- The Collector’s order dated 6 August 2026 rejecting the NA application was quashed for disregarding the High Court’s order of 2 March 2026.
- The application was restored for decision within the statutory period in terms of the earlier judgment.
- The Collector must deposit ₹1,00,000 from his own salary within one month, failing which the State must deposit it and recover it from his salary; the amount goes to the petitioner.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It protects landholders from being sent back and forth by revenue officers after winning in court.
- Personal costs from an officer’s salary signal that disregard of court orders has consequences.
- It restates the narrow scope of the Collector’s inquiry for NA permission in Gujarat.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Landowners
- An NA application cannot be refused on doubts about title; occupancy is what matters.
- If a court has quashed a rejection, a repeat rejection on the same grounds can be challenged quickly.
- Ask for costs where officials ignore court directions.
For Counsel
- Cite Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat on the limits of Section 65.
- A pending possibility of an appeal is no reason to ignore a binding order.
- Departmental circulars cannot override a court’s directions.
Key Takeaways
- Section 65 NA permission depends on occupancy, not title.
- The Collector’s second rejection was quashed.
- ₹1 lakh costs were imposed on the Collector personally.
- Authorities with objections to a court order must approach the court in time.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Collector examine under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code?
Whether the applicant is an occupant and whether the land is agricultural; the Court held the Collector cannot inquire into title.
Why did the High Court order costs from the Collector’s own salary?
Because the Collector rejected the application again on the same grounds despite the Court’s earlier order, which the Court treated as a flagrant violation.
Can a possible Letters Patent Appeal justify not following a judgment?
No. The Court noted no appeal had been filed for over seven months, and authorities must either comply or approach the court in time.
Conclusion
The judgment backs a landowner who had already won once and was made to start over. By putting the costs on the officer personally, the Court made clear that its orders are not optional.
Practical takeaway: Where a revenue authority repeats a rejection that a court has quashed, seek quashing with personal costs; occupancy, not title, is the test for NA permission.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com