Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ghansyambai Babubhai Kachhadiya on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
4716 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1181 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1181 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16870 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 1181 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16870 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4720 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1182 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1182 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16874 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 1182 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16874 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4750 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1183 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1183 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16871 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 1183 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16871 of 2024
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
GHANSYAMBAI BABUBHAI KACHHADIYA & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MS HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
PRATEEK S BHATIA(8629) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 14/10/2025
Page 1 of 20
Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:10:44 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard Ms. Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the appellants. Mr. Prateek S. Bhatia,
learned advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the
respondents.
2. There is no objection to the delay condonation
applications. The delay in filing the appeals has been
explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay
condonation applications are hereby allowed. Office
shall allot regular number to the appeals.
3. The above noted three intra court appeals filed by the
State are arising out of the common judgment and order
dated 24.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge.
All the appeals are being heard together and are being
decided by this common order. The learned Single
Judge has issued the following directions :-
"4. In view of the above observations, the following
directions are passed:-
(i) The orders dated 28.10.2024 and 29.10.2024
passed by the Collector, Vadodara is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(ii) The petitioners to file an application for grant of
non-agricultural permission within a period of
seven (07) days from today and whereas, upon such
application being received, the Collector, Vadodara
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
shall examine the same and take appropriate
decision strictly in accordance with law and in
accordance with the law as explained by this Court
in case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani and Anr.
Vs State of Gujarat and Ors.
(iii) The Collector shall also not be influenced in
any manner whatsoever by the considerations
which weighed with him while passing orders
dated 20.03.2023, 03.04.2023, 13.03.2023 as well
as the present impugned orders dated 28.10.2024
and 29.10.2024.
5. With the above observations and directions, the
present petitions stand disposed of as allowed."
4. The three writ petitions, out of which the present
appeals have arisen, have been filed by three persons
(respondents herein) (common in each petition) with the
prayer for quashing of the three orders dated
28.10.2024 (two in number) and 29.10.2024 (one in
number) passed by the Collector rejecting three
applications seeking NA permission for three parcels of
situated at Village Baripura, Taluka Dabhoi, District
Vadodara.
5. It is reiterated that three writ petitions were filed by the
common petitioners, challenging the orders of rejection
of NA applications with respect to the aforesaid three
plots. All three orders, subject matter of challenge in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
three writ petitions decided together by judgment and
order dated 24.12.2024, contain the same grounds for
rejection of the prayer of the petitioners.
6. For convenience, the facts stated in one of the writ
petitions, viz. Special Civil Application No. 16870 of
2024, are being noted herein to deal with the
controversy on hands.
7. The subject lands, i.e. three parcels of lands purchased
by common petitioners (three in number) were originally
running in the name of Patel Naynaben Devendrabhai
and the same was sold to (1) Patel Maheshbhai
Maganbhai and (2) Patel Thakorebhai Maganbhai by way
of registered sale deed dated 26.03.2008, revenue entry
of the said sale was recorded vide Entry no. 1190. The
second sale deed in the name of the petitioners of the
subject lands were executed on 06.09.2022 and the
revenue entry of the same was made as Entry no. 1804.
It is categorically stated in the Writ petition that the
current revenue records bear the names of the
petitioners as owners of the subject land and the lands in
question are being used for agricultural purposes.
8. The petitioners filed NA applications through E-portal
for converting the subject lands from agricultural to non-
agricultural purposes. Vide order dated 20.03.2023, the
Collector, Vadodara had rejected the applications on the
ground that the subject lands were running in the name
of Maganbhai Bhulabhai and later in the name of Bai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
Ganga wife of Nathabhai Maganbhai, though the
occupiers of the land were different. There were some
issues raised with regard to the consolidation and the
statement in the order is that Block No. 164 was running
in the name of Bai Ganga wife of Nathabhai Maganbhai.
9. Pertinent is to record that the writ petitions, out of
which the present appeals have arisen, were the second
round of litigations initiated by the same
persons/original petitioners herein.
10. In the first round of litigation in Special Civil Application
No. 7053 of 2023, Special Civil Application No. 7062 of
2023 and Special Civil Application No. 7093 of 2023, the
petitioners had challenged three orders of rejection of
NA applications dated 20.03.2023, 03.04.2023 and
13.03.2023. The aforesaid three writ petitions were
decided together vide judgement and order dated
31.01.2024 with the following observations and
directions as under :-
"3. All the three applications were rejected by the
respondent authority broadly on the following
grounds:
(a) the land in question having old survey no.
162/1 and163 were running in the name of
Maganbhai Bhulabhai,survey no. 204 was
running in the name of Pravinchandra
Motibhai Patel, survey no. 205, survey
no.215/2 and 216 was running in the name of
Bai Ganga wife of Nathabhai Maganbhai in
the revenue records and though the occupiers
of the land were different how the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
consolidation took place and block no. 164
was running in the name of Bai Ganga wife of
Nathabhai Maganbhai, whether any other
occupiers in respect of land are there or not
and a reply from the Assistant Consolidation
Officer was awaited.
(b) Mamlatdar, and ALT Dabhoi, vide its letter
dated17.2.2023 has formed a negative
opinion in respect of the application for
converting the land into N.A land on the
ground that in respect of entry no. 809 and
entry no.814, whether there is any blood
relation between the beneficiary of the Will
and the person who has executed the Will and
such verification is still to be done.
(c) As far as entry no. 809 dated 14.4.1988 is
concerned,the aforesaid entry in the name of
Devendrabhai Kanubhai Patel was entered
into revenue record on account of death of
Patel Gangabhai Nathabhai, however,the
aforesaid entry was cancelled, entry no. 814
dated13.11.1989 was challenged before the
Deputy Collector, Dabhoi, and the same was
also cancelled and the matter was remanded
back to Mamlatdar and record indicates that
the Mamlatdar even without proceeding with
the remand case straightaway passed
mutation entry no. 809 which is improper as
per the record of rights.
4. After the respondent authorities rejected the
petitioner's application on the aforesaid grounds,
the petitioner has challenged three different orders
the details of which are as under :
5. By way of SCA no. 7053 of 2023 the petitioner's
application for conversion of agricultural land
bearing survey no. 216 of village Baripura, Taluka
Dabhoi District Vadodara having Old survey /Block
no. 164 was rejected by Collector Vadodara vide
order dated 20.3.2023. In SCA no. 7062 of 2023,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
the petitioner has challenged the order dated
3.4.2023 passed by Additional Resident Collector,
Vadodara whereby the petitioner's application for
converting the agricultural land into N.A land in
respect of survey no. 249 old survey/block no. 191
of village Baripura, Taluka Dabhoi District
Vadodara was rejected. By SCA 7093 of 2023 the
petitioner has challenged the order dated
13.3.2023 passed by the Collector, Vadodara in
respect of an application made by the petitioner for
conversion of agricultural land into N.A land under
Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in
respect of survey no. 253 old survey/block no. 191
of village Baripura, Taluka Dabhoi, District
Vadodara.
6. Though there are three different applications all
the applications were rejected more or less on the
same ground all and, hence, the three matters
were heard together and are now decided
together."
"10. Heard learned advocates for the parties and
perused the record. On perusal of the record of
petitions, I found that the N.A permissions are
denied to the petitioner by the concerned authority
by considering certain aspects which have taken
place more than 30 years back and that too at a
time the land was not held by the petitioner.
Though the land was not held by the petitioner
when the erstwhile owner of the land sold the land
to subsequent purchasers, such transfers were
never questioned nor such transfers were
questioned to be violative of any of the provisions
of any law related to land laws and at present no
proceedings for any such alleged violation of law
are pending.
11. Further, when the law on this regard is very clear
about the scope of inquiry and what should be the
consideration while considering the application for
grant of N.A which is considered in the case of
Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani and Anr. Vs State of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
Gujarat and Ors., reported in 2019 (4) GLR 2578
wherein this Court in para no. 35 to 44 observed as
under:
"35. Section 65 of the Code, referred to
above, on its plain reading, do not provide for
any scope of raising objection by any party
who is yet to establish its right in his favour
over the land in question. In other words, the
proceedings under section 65 of the Code is
not an adversary proceeding at all.
36. In section 65 of the Code, referred to
above, two words are of pivotal importance;
(i) "occupant" and (ii) "holding". Section 3(12)
defines the term "holding". It reads as under;
"3(12):-"holding":-"holding" means a
portion of land held by a holder"
37. Section 3(16) defines the term
"occupant". It reads under;
"3(16):-"occupant"; "occupant means a holder
in actual possession of unalienated land,
other than a tenant; provided that where the
holder in actual possession is tenant the
landlord or superior landlord, as the case may
be, shall be deemed to be the occupant."
38. Thus, the plain reading of section 65
makes it clear that for the purpose of grant of
N.A. Permission, the first thing the Collector
should look into is whether the applicant,
seeking N.A. Permission, is an occupant of the
land which is being assessed or held for the
purpose of agriculture. For the purpose of
ascertaining this, the Collector is expected to
look into the revenue records. The name of
the applicant in the revenue records would
prima facie go to show or rather indicate that
he is the occupant of the land. The second
step in the process would be to ascertain
whether such land is being assessed or held
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
for the purpose of agriculture.
39. Section 65 of the Code provides for the
uses to which an occupant of land for the
purpose of agriculture may put his land to. If
the occupant of the land wishes to use the
land for purposes other than the agriculture
or agriculture-related activities, he is
required to make an application to the
Collector for permission to do so. It may be
noted that the key-word in Section 65 is the
occupant of the land. It is sufficient for the
purposes of Section 65, that the person
applying for NA Permission is an occupant of
the land. It is nowhere stated in the said
provision that the applicant should have title
or ownership over the land for which NA
Permission is sought. The legislature, in its
wisdom, has thought it fit that it should
suffice if an occupant of the land applies for
NA Permission. It is not necessary that such
person has to prove his title to the land before
he makes an application. The present case is
on a far better footing. Not only are the
petitioners occupants of the land, they are
also the owners thereof, by a legal and valid
registered Sale Deed. The said sale deed may
be a subject matter of challenge before the
Civil Court but the fact remains that the Civil
Court has not yet passed any decree
cancelling the same or declaring it to be
illegal or obtained by fraud.
40. Thus, it transpires that, no power is
available to the Collector under Section 65 of
the Code to examine or conclude regarding
the title of the writ applicants over the land in
question. A bare reading of the said provision
makes it clear that it only provides for the
uses to which an occupant of land for
agricultural purposes, may put his land to.
The provision further lays down the
procedure to be followed for making an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
application for NA Permission by the occupier
and the manner in which it is to be processed
by the Competent Authority. Nowhere is it
contemplated in Section 65 that the Collector
is empowered to undertake an inquiry into
the title of the occupier.
41. A perusal of the impugned order dated
19th November, 2014 passed by the Collector
makes it clear that the reason for the
rejection of the application of the writ
applicants is that their title to the land in
question is defective on the ground that two
civil suits are pending.
42. In State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha,
(1969)2 SCC 187, the Supreme Court has
clearly held as below:
"14. We are also of the opinion that the
Commissioner should not have gone into
question of title. It seems to us that
when the title of an occupant is disputed
by any party before the Collector or the
Commissioner and the dispute is serious
the appropriate course for the Collector
or the Commissioner would be to refer
the parties to a competent Court and not
decide the question of title himself
against the occupant. "
43. This was also a case where the NA
Permission under the provisions of Section 65
of the Code was in issue. The above principles
of law therefore, squarely apply to the
present case.
44. Considering the provisions of Section 65
of the Code as well as the above
pronouncement of law by the Supreme Court,
this Court cannot but arrive at the inevitable
conclusion that the denial of NA Permission to
the writ applicants under the garb of a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
purportedly defective title over the land in
question amounts to a transgression of the
limits of jurisdiction vested in the second
respondent under the Code. The impugned
order is, therefore, one without jurisdiction.
For such reason also the plea of alternative
remedy should fail."
12. The aforesaid paras more particularly para 39
makes it clear that Section 65 of the Code provides
for the uses to which an occupant of the land for
the purpose of agriculture may put his land to. The
Court has by considering the aspect of application
for N.A by an occupier has held that the rejection
of N.A. permission under the garb of a purportedly
defective title over the land in question amounts to
acting beyond the scope of jurisdiction vested in
the authority under the Code and therefore, the
impugned order whereby the N.A permission was
rejected by the authority by taking into
consideration defective title was quashed by the
Court in case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani.
13. In the instant case also, the grounds on which the
N.A permission is rejected cannot be attributed to
the present petitioner. The Collector, Vadodara,
while rejecting the application for conversion of
land into N.A land has traveled back in respect of
history of the land in question to the extent of 30
years. The order states that there are questionable
entries, some entries are mutated despite the
aforesaid entry was quashed and the matter was
remanded back and that too without carrying out
remand proceedings, some entries are mutated on
account of Will and the aspect of whether there is
blood relation between the parties or not is not
examined as well as on the ground that how
various survey nos having different occupier have
been consolidated into one block. The impugned
order indicates that even if those are the illegalities
committed at the relevant point of time in the year
80's and 90's wherein the same had taken place on
the ground of some inaction on the part of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
government authorities for which the present
petitioner cannot be held responsible. Further,
though questions are raised over the title over the
land in question, nothing comes out from the
record as to whether any proceedings are initiated
in respect of the aforesaid shortcomings pointed
out vide impugned order whereby N.A permission
is rejected. In absence of there being any other
material as well as considering the fact that the
petitioner is a bonafide purchaser who is the last
one in the chain of transactions and the reasons on
which the N.A permission is rejected are not
attributable to the petitioner as well as considering
the ratio laid down in the case of Tusharbhai
Harjibhai Ghelani, the impugned orders are
unsustainable and therefore those are legally
unsustainable and are required to be quashed and
set aside. Accordingly, impugned orders in each
petition i.e order dated 20.3.2023 passed by the
Collector, Vadodara in Special Civil Application no.
7053 of 2023, order dated 3.4.2023 passed by the
Additional Resident Collector, Vadodara in Special
Civil Application no. 7062 of 2023, order dated
13.3.2022 passed byCollector, Vadodara in Special
Civil Application No. 7093 of 2023, are hereby
quashed and set aside.
14. The matter is remanded back to Collector
Vadodara/Additional Resident Collector Vadodara
whosoever is competent to take decision upon the
petitioner's application for N.A conversion. The
matter is remanded back to those authorities to
consider the petitioner's application afresh and to
take a decision in accordance with law.
15. With the aforesaid observations, petitions are
allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to
costs."
11. It seems that after passing of the judgement and order
dated 31.01.2024, the petitioners again submitted online
applications through E-portal seeking NA permission,
i.e. for converting the subject land from agricultural to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
non-agricultural purposes. Again, the Collector,
Vadodara, passed three separate orders 28.10.2024 (2
in number) and 29.10.2024 (one in number) rejecting
the NA applications filed by the original petitioners with
respect to the aforesaid three parcels of lands.
12. Even In the second round, the NA applications filed by
the petitioners were rejected reitreating the selfsame
grounds which were the basis of rejection of the
applications in the year 2023 and the orders whereof
have already been set aside by this court in the
judgement and order dated 31.01.2024.
13. It seems that it is for this reason the learned Single
Judge passed the order dated 20.12.2024 requiring the
Collector, Vadodara to remain present in the Court
explaining the circumstances under which the impugned
orders came to be passed, more particularly on the face
of judgement and order dated 31.01.2024 passed in
Special Civil Application No. 7053 of 2023 and allied
matters. The Collector, Vadodara was also required to
file appropriate affidavit explaining the queries of the
Court as to the circumstances under which the very
selfsame objections have been relied upon for rejection
of the applications for grant of any permission.
14. The impugned order dated 24.12.2024 records that the
affidavit filed by the Collector, Vadodara was taken on
record and the said affidavit though started with an
apology, but the collector tried to justify the reasons for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
passing the orders impugned dated 28.10.2024 and
29.10.2024 for rejection of the NA application, more
particularly, as regards the probability of the provisions
of Agricultural Land Ceiling Act being violative on
account of the Entry No. 780 dated 06.02.1985. It is
noted by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned
that the Collector, Vadodara has failed to appreciate the
law laid down by this court in the case of Tusharbhai
Harjibhai Ghelani and Anr. Vs State of Gujarat and
Ors. [2019 (4) GLR 2578], which was the basis of
passing the judgement and order dated 31.01.2024
wherein the scope of inquiry under Section 65 of the
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 has been laid down.
15. The writ court records that in the first round of litigation
vide judgement and order dated 31.01.2024, the
Coordinate Bench had specifically laid down that Section
65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 provides
for the use to with an occupant of the land for the
purposes of agriculture may put his land to. The key
words in section 65 of the Code is the occupant of the
land and it is sufficient for the purposes of Section 65 of
the Code that the person applying for NA permission is
the occupant of the land. The question about the title or
ownership over the land in question for which NA
permission is sought, cannot be examined within the
scope of Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code,
1879. It was also noted that in the facts of the present
case, the petitioners therein (herein as well) stand at a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
better footing as they are not only occupants of the
subject lands but also the owners thereof by virtue of the
registered Sale Deed dated 06.09.2022.It is also noted
that the registered sale deed has not been cancelled or
held invalid by any competent Court of law.
16. The judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 passed by
the writ court allowing the writ petitions of the year
2023 categorically records that the Collector, Vadodara
while rejecting the applications for conversion of the
land into NA land had travelled back in time in respect
of history of the lands in question about 30 years ago.
The questionable entries being revenue entries of 30
years old could not have been made basis for rejection of
the NA applications. Some entries mutated on account
of the Will could not have been disputed on the doubts
raised in the order as to whether there was a blood
relationship between the parties (executant and the
beneficiary) or not.
17. It was noted that the impugned order indicated of some
alleged illegalities committed sometime in the years
1980s and 1990s which was not the subject matter of
scrutiny to raise any doubt about the title of the
petitioners over the lands in question so as to take it a
ground for rejection of NA applications. It is also noted
by the writ court in the first round that nothing came out
from the record as to whether any proceedings were
initiated in respect of any of the shortcomings
mentioned in the orders impugned for rejecting NA
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
permission. In absence of there being any other material
and also the fact that the petitioners are bona fide
purchasers of the land in question, being the last
persons in the chain of transactions, NA applications
moved by them could not have been rejected. The writ
petitions were allowed taking note of the ratio of law
laid down by the Coordinate bench in Tusharbhai
Harjibhai Ghelani (supra) vide judgement and order
dated 31.01.2024 with the above noted categorical
observations by the writ court to remand the matter to
the Collector, Vadodara for fresh decision.
18. Taking note of the above, it is neither understandable
nor acceptable as to how that the Collector, Vadodara
could have rejected the fresh applications filed by the
petitioners in the second round by passing the orders
dated 28.10.2024 and 29.10.2024 on the very selfsame
grounds on which the NA applications filed in the year
2023 were rejected.
19. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the
decision of the learned Single Judge dated 24.12.2024
in setting aside the orders dated 28.10.2024 (two in
number) and 29.10.2024 (one in number) holding them
as unsustainable in the eye of law. No error can be
attached to the directions issued by the learned Single
judge in paragraph '4' of the judgement impugned, as
noted hereinabove.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
20. The present appeals having been filed on behalf of the
State to challenge the judgement and order dated
24.12.2024 are liable to be dismissed outrightly being
devoid of merits.
21. However the matter does not rest here. It seems that
after the impugned judgement and order dated
24.12.2024 was passed by the learned Single Judge, the
NA applications filed by the petitioners were rejected
third time vide three separate orders of the same date,
i.e. 12.03.2025. The petitioners filed three writ petitions
challenging the same which were registered as Special
Civil Application No. 3817 of 2025, Special Civil
Application No. 3823 of 2025 and Special Civil
Application No. 3832 of 2025.
22. The said writ petitions were disposed of vide common
judgement and order dated 07.05.2025 on the
undertaking given on behalf of the State respondents
before the writ court that the NA applications would be
considered in the spirit of the law laid down by this
Court without raising any issue with regard to the
previous entries pertaining to the lands in question.
23. The Collector further passed three separate orders dated
10.06.2025 with respect to three parcels of lands
granting NA permission, however, a condition No.14 has
been attached thereto that the permission being granted
would be subject to any proceedings pending before any
revenue court, civil court or any tenancy proceedings.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
This sort of vague condition put in the order dated
10.06.2025, while granting NA permission with respect
to the subject lands has led to the filing of a recall
application by the petitioners in the writ petitions.
24. After the recall application was entertained by this court
the Collector, Vadodara has come out with the Order
dated 10.10.2025 filed before the writ court being
Special Civil Application No. SCA No. 3817 of 2025 and
allied matters with the affidavit of the Collector, wherein
the condition no.14 put in the order dated 10.06.2025
had been removed. Resultantly, the said writ petitions
have been disposed of vide judgement and order dated
13.10.2025.
25. Noticing the above, we find that the officers holding the
office of Collector, Vadodara at the relevant point of
time have failed to apply their minds to the settled legal
position pertaining to the inquiry to be made under
Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 in
utter ignorance of the decision of this Court in
Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani (supra). The attitude
of the officers in passing repeated orders putting caveat
about the title of the predecessor in interest of the
petitioners by digging graves, to reject the NA
permission was without any substantive basis. There is
nothing on record even in the present set of appeals
filed by the State appellant which would indicate that
any legal proceedings had ever been initiated with
respect to the revenue entries made in favour of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
predecessors in interest of the petitioners. All doubts
raised in the first set of orders of rejection of the NA
permission of the year 2023 till the third set of orders of
rejection of the year 2025, were without any basis.
26. This illegal approach of the officers holding the office of
the Collector has led to three rounds of litigation being
initiated by the petitioners which not only caused
sufferance to the petitioners but also caused
unnecessary burden to the volume of litigation this court
is facing on day-to-day basis. The inaction and
dereliction on the part of the officers holding the office
of Collector, while passing the orders impugned while
ignoring the specific directions contained in the orders
of the writ court, is wholly unacceptable.
27. We, therefore, provide that the matter be placed before
the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department of
the State, who shall personally look into the matter and
take effective corrective measures by organising
orientation courses, workshops and training
programmes on revenue laws for officers of all cadres of
the Revenue Department so that the officers holding the
Revenue Courts or in-charge of the Revenue Department
are made aware of the legal position settled with the
decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court and
are able to understand the law stated in the statute
books. This kind of training programmes are the need of
the hour for effective functioning of the Revenue
Department of the State. There is also a need to fix
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4716/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
accountability on the erring officials if they are found
guilty of any mischievous action. Some deterrent in the
nature of directions have to be issued while conducting
such workshops / training programmes and also the
circular of the Revenue Department to curb recurrence
of such actions. We expect that the Revenue Secretary
shall take effective positive steps to ensure that such a
situation may not recur in any of the future proceedings.
28. Subject to the above observations and directions, we
dismiss the present set of appeals being devoid of
merits. No order as to costs. Pending civil applications in
the respective appeals stand disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
