Gujarat High Court
Prakash Mohanbhai Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2709/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2709 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2709 of 2024
==========================================================
PRAKASH MOHANBHAI PRAJAPATI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA S PATEL(12087) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners challenge the
order dated 07.11.2023 rejecting the permission under Section 65 of
the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 ["Code" for short]
seeking Non Agricultural Use permission in respect of the land
bearing Survey No.267/2. Learned advocate for the petitioners
submits that the application has been rejected on the ground
that the agricultural status of the petitioner No.4 was in doubt
and it could not be ascertained whether the said petitioner was
an agriculturist or not. Further, since negative opinion had also
been granted by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Vadodara (Rural), the
application came to be rejected. Learned advocate for the
petitioners submits that the coordinate Bench of this Court in
catena of decisions has held that it is not open for the Collector
to consider as to whether the petitioner is an agriculturist or
not and more particularly when there are no proceedings in
respect of the agriculturist status of the person pending or
initiated by the appropriate authority in that respect. In
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2709/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
support of his contention, learned advocate for the petitioners
has relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 25.09.2019 in
Special Civil Application No.19455 of 2018.
2. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader
submits that the impugned order is a reasoned order based on
the revenue records. He submits that after taking into
consideration the negative opinion of the Mamlatdar & ALT,
Vadodara (Rural), the agricultural status of the petitioner No.4
herein cannot be ascertained, the application has been rightly
rejected. He, therefore, submits that no interference is called
for and the writ petition be dismissed.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the
documents on record.
4. The impugned order reveals that the Collector, Vadodara
has considered the agricultural status of the petitioner No.4
while rejecting the application under Section 65 of the Code.
The application has been preferred by all the four petitioners.
The agricultural status of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 is not in
question. However, in case of petitioner No.4, the Mamlatdar &
ALT, Vadodara (Rural) had opined that the evidence in support
of the agricultural status of the petitioner No.4 are insufficient
and therefore, the permission should not be granted under
Section 65 of the Code.
5. It is now well settled that while considering the
application under Section 65 of the Code, it is not open for the
Collector to consider as to whether the person is an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2709/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
agriculturist or not and more particularly when there are no
proceedings in respect of the agriculturist status of the person
pending or initiated by the appropriate authority.
6. In the present case, nothing is brought on record or
mentioned in the impugned order as to any notice has been
issued to the petitioner No.4 in respect of his agricultural
status or that the authorities have initiated any proceedings in
respect of the said status. Further, the name of the petitioner
No.4 has been mutated in the revenue records on the basis of
the heirship.
7. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 07.11.2023 is
quashed and set aside. The application No.31902202307117 is
restored to the file of Collector, Vadodara. The Collector,
Vadodara shall decide the application afresh on its own merits
and in accordance with law within a period of 90 days from the
date of receipt of this order after giving due hearing to the
petitioners.
With the aforesaid observations and direction, the
present Special Civil Application is allowed and stands
disposed of. No order as to costs.
In view of disposal of main writ petition, Civil Application
for direction does not survive. The Civil Application No.1 of
2025 also stands disposed of.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN
