Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 3 (GUJ)

Nitinbhai Mavjibhai Sinojiya v. State Of Gujarat

2026-01-05

ANIRUDDHA P.MAYEE

body2026
JUDGMENT : ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners impugn the order dated 05.04.2016 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad as well as the order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the Dy. Collector, Dhoraji rejecting the application for grant of Non-Agricultural [“NA” for short] permission by the petitioners. 2. The factual matrix in the present case is that, the petitioners have purchased Survey No.1332/paiki 1/paiki 1 at Village Bhayavadar, Taluka Upleta, District Rajkot through registered sale deed No.538 and mutation entry No.19582 also came to be recorded in favour of the petitioners in the revenue records based on the sale deed. Thereafter, mutation entry No.19809 came to be entered and certified reflecting partition and separate ownership of the land admeasuring 1-19-96 sq. mts. in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter applied for NA permission for residential use to the Dy. Collector, Dhoraji on 01.02.2014. By communication dated 28.04.2016, the said application came to be rejected by the Dy. Collector, Dhoraji on the ground that the opinion of the Mamlatdar, Upleta has not been received in respect of the title of the land in question. The petitioners thereafter moved another application for reviewing the rejection of the NA permission. By order dated 30.05.2014, the Dy. Collector, Dhoraji has rejected the application for NA permission of the petitioners on the ground that the title of the land is not clear. 2.1 Aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred revision before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department under Section 211 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 [“GLRC” for short]. By impugned order dated 30.03.2016, the revision of the petitioners came to be rejected upholding the reasoning given by the Dy. Collector, Dhoraji that since the title of the petitioners was not clear in respect of the subject land in question, the NA permission has been rightly refused. Aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Y.V.Vaghela, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the lawful owners and occupiers of the land bearing Survey No.1332/paiki 1/paiki 1 admeasuring 1-19-96 sq. mts. situated at Village Bhayavadar, Taluka Upleta, District Rajkot. The mutation entries have also been effected and duly certified. The mutation entry No.19809 in the revenue records clearly shows that the petitioners are the lawful owners and occupiers of the subject land. The Dy. mts. situated at Village Bhayavadar, Taluka Upleta, District Rajkot. The mutation entries have also been effected and duly certified. The mutation entry No.19809 in the revenue records clearly shows that the petitioners are the lawful owners and occupiers of the subject land. The Dy. Collector, Dhoraji has come to a wrong conclusion that the title in respect of the subject land is not clear. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have completely ignored the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that the order of the Dy. Collector, Dhoraji as upheld by the Secretary (Appeals) is discriminatory and arbitrary in as much as the NA permission in respect of the same subject land was already granted earlier on 22.10.2008 to one Mahendrakumar Manilal Patel from whom the petitioners had purchased the subject land. Further, the Rajkot Urban Development Authority / Town Planner by order dated 17.09.2013 has also granted development permission after considering the lay out plan. It is submitted that the title of the petitioners on the subject land was never in question even before the other authorities. The learned counsel further submits that even otherwise, the impugned orders are in breach of principles of natural justice in as much as no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioners before passing the impugned orders. He submits that even otherwise, by various judgments, this Court has held that while considering the application for NA permission, the issue of title cannot be looked into. He, therefore, submits that the authorities below have misinterpreted Section 65 of the GLRC. In the present case, the petitioners are not only the lawful occupiers of the subject land but also the owners thereof and therefore also, the rejection is bad in law and contrary to the decisions of this Court. He, therefore, submits that the impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal and be quashed and set aside. 4. Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the subject land in question is an agricultural land in the revenue records and therefore, the petitioners had applied for permission under Section 65 of the GLRC for Non- Agricultural use. She submits that the petitioners are subsequent purchasers by registered sale deed dated 10.02.2011. 4. Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the subject land in question is an agricultural land in the revenue records and therefore, the petitioners had applied for permission under Section 65 of the GLRC for Non- Agricultural use. She submits that the petitioners are subsequent purchasers by registered sale deed dated 10.02.2011. She submits that the application of the petitioners came to be rejected firstly on 28.04.2014 as the requisite title and the land record report was not received from the Mamlatdar, Upleta. She submits that the petitioners thereafter filed a fresh application seeking re-consideration. It is further submitted that upon examination of the revenue records, the respondent authorities noticed that the agricultural land was already transferred in the name of 18 different persons and their possession was without any permission for NA use which is clearly in violation of the law. She submits that the report as received from the Mamlatdar, Upleta has been relied upon by the Dy. Collector, Dhoraji for rejecting the NA permission of the petitioners since the land has already been unlawfully converted and utilized for NA purpose. She submits that there is no illegality, perversity or procedural impropriety in the impugned orders and the present writ petition be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsels for the parties, considered the submissions and perused the documents on record. 6. The law in respect of grant of permission under Section 65 of the GLRC is now well settled. Section 65 provides for the uses to which an occupant of an agricultural land may put to. In terms of the said section, an occupant of the land is required to make an application to the Collector for necessary permission, if he wishes to use the land for the purpose other than the agricultural or agriculture related activities. Section 65 of the GLRC uses the words “occupant of the land”. For the purpose of the said section, it is necessary that the person, who is applying for NA permission is necessarily an occupant of the subject land. The legislature has provided for the occupant of the land to apply for NA permission. Section 65 of the GLRC uses the words “occupant of the land”. For the purpose of the said section, it is necessary that the person, who is applying for NA permission is necessarily an occupant of the subject land. The legislature has provided for the occupant of the land to apply for NA permission. The person who makes an application under Section 65 has to prove his occupancy of the subject land in question at the time of making of such an application and Section 65 does not provide that such an occupant has to prove his title to the land at the time of making such an application. In the present case, the petitioners herein are not only the lawful occupants, but also owners thereto by a registered sale deed. 7. It is now well settled that there is no power available to the competent authority under Section 65 of the GLRC to examine or conclude the title of the applicant over the land in question. In the present case, the application of the petitioners has been rejected only on the ground that their title to the land in question is not clear. Considering the scope and purport of Section 65 of the GLRC and the catena of decisions of Apex Court as well as this Court, the impugned orders denying the NA permission to the petitioners for not having a clear title to the subject land in question, would amount to adjudicating the application beyond the powers vested in the competent authority under Section 65 of the GLRC and therefore, is without jurisdiction. The impugned orders are in teeth of the provisions of Section 65 of the GLRC in as much as it is in contravention of the manner in which the same has been processed by the competent authority and the procedure followed by it. The competent authority could not have gone into the question of title of the petitioners in absence of any dispute by any party before the competent authority. 8. For the aforesaid reasons and observations, the impugned orders dated 30.05.2015 passed by the Dy. The competent authority could not have gone into the question of title of the petitioners in absence of any dispute by any party before the competent authority. 8. For the aforesaid reasons and observations, the impugned orders dated 30.05.2015 passed by the Dy. Collector, Dhoraji and dated 05.04.2016 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad are hereby quashed and set aside being without jurisdiction having exceeded the scope of Section 65 of the GLRC since the competent authority is not empowered to undertake any inquiry into the title of the occupier under Section 65 of the GLRC. The competent authority is directed to pass an appropriate order in respect of the application for NA permission of the petitioners strictly within the scope and purport of the GLRC as also taking into consideration the various decisions passed by this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The present Special Civil Application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.