Gujarat High Court
Imrankhan Sikandarkhan Malek vs State Of Gujarat on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12771/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12771 of 2023
==========================================================
IMRANKHAN SIKANDARKHAN MALEK
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAY BAROT AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Jay Barot, learned
AGP waives service of rule for the respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties,
the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
3. The present Special Civil Application is filed praying to set
aside the impugned order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the
Collector, Patan whereby the Non Agriculture use permission for
the land in question has been rejected.
4. The petitioner is the owner and occupier of the subject
land in question and has purchased the same by registered sale
deed dated 18.08.2021. Mutation entry No.3289 has also been
entered into the revenue records in favour of the petitioner which
has also been duly certified on 12.10.2021. Learned advocate for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made earlier
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12771/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
application dated 27.10.2021 for Non Agriculture use
permission. The same came to be rejected by order dated
15.12.2021 on the ground that one Tapubha Ravaji who was the
original owner had transferred the land to his brother Nashubha
Ravaji for which appropriate stamp duty was required and that
one of the pnredecessors in title Thakkar Dalsukhlal Manilal was
not an agriculturist. That thereafter the petitioner moved
another application dated 09.04.2023 for Non Agriculture use
permission which also came to be filed by the impugned order on
the ground that there is no evidence to show that one of the
sellers of the petitioner Thakkar Dalsukhlal Manilal was an
agriculturists or not, is not clear. Aggrieved, the petitioner has
filed the present Special Civil Application.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that by a
catena of decisions, this court has held that the agriculturist
status of the predecessor in title of the owner and occupier of the
land in question is not a relevant consideration for deciding the
application for Non Agriculture use. He submits that by the
impugned order, the only reason assigned is that one of the
predecessors in title of the petitioner was not an agriculturists.
He submits that no other reason has been assigned for rejecting
the application of the petitioner. In support of his contention,
learned advocate for the petitioner relies on the judgments of
this Court in Special Civil Application No.19455 of 2018 dated
25.09.2019 and Special Civil Application No.11295 of 2023
dated 20.03.2024 as well as decision Ganeshbhai Jerajbhai
Lakhani v. Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department -
2024 (3) GLR 2428.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12771/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
6. Per contra, Mr. Jay Barot, learned Assistant Government
Pleader submits that from the revenue record, it appears that
one of the predecessors in title of the subject land owned by the
petitioner is not an agriculturist as per the observations made by
the Collector, Patan after perusing the revenue records. He
submits that if the agricultural land is not held by the
agriculturists, then there is a breach of conditions and the
appropriate proceedings are liable to be initiated. In view thereof,
he submits that the Collector, Patan has rightly relied on the
said fact to reject the application of the petitioner. He submits
that while considering the application, the authorities have also
to examine if there is any breach of any conditions in respect of
the subject land. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order
may not be interfered with.
7. Heard learned advocates for the parties, considered the
submissions and perused the documents on record.
8. This Court has held, in catena of decisions, that the status
of the predecessor in title of the land in question is not a relevant
consideration for the purpose of deciding the application for
permission for grant of Non Agriculture use under Section 65 of
the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.
9. In the present case, the status of the petitioner is not in
question and the entries in respect of the subject land are
certified and no proceedings are pending as is revealed from the
revenue entries on record. Further, no proceedings seems to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12771/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
have been issued at any point of time by the revenue authorities
and the same is not recorded in the impugned order. In the
impugned order, the competent authority has only raised a
doubt with respect to the agriculturist status of the predecessor
in title. The same seems to be without any basis as no reason
has been recorded in support of such finding. It is now well
settled that it is not open for the Collector to consider the status
of the predecessor in title in absence of any appropriate
proceedings being initiated or any adverse order having being
passed against such predecessor. There is a presumption as to
the correctness of the mutation entry as effected in the revenue
records under Section 135-J of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.
10. For the aforesaid reasons and observations, the impugned
order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the Collector, Patan is
quashed and set aside. The application No.30301202300629 of
the petitioner is restored to the file of the Collector, Patan for
considering the said application afresh on on its own merits and
in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner. The said application shall be decided within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The present Special Civil Application is allowed to the
aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent. No
order as to costs.
Direct Service is permitted.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN
