The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has directed the Ahmedabad Collector to pay ₹1 lakh in costs from his own salary as a consequence of his persistent failure to comply with judicial mandates regarding a landowner’s application for non-agricultural (NA) use. Justice M. K. Thakker, presiding over the matter, underscored that government officials are not exempt from the rule of law and criticized the administrative conduct as an attempt to act as a "superpower authority" above the court’s directives.

The litigation concerns an application filed by Bhumikaben Brahmbhatt, who sought permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, to convert her agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. The Collector had initially rejected her application in February 2025, citing objections related to past land transactions and an alleged lack of clearance under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

A Pattern of Non-Compliance

The petitioner successfully challenged that initial refusal in a previous petition, where the High Court, relying on the precedent set in Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat , clarified that the Collector’s jurisdiction under Section 65 is limited to a summary inquiry into occupancy and land usage. The Court expressly ruled that the Collector is not empowered to examine title disputes or the validity of historical land entries during the NA permission process. On March 2, 2026, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the rejection, and ordered the Collector to issue a fresh decision within the statutory 90-day timeframe.

Following this directive, the petitioner filed a fresh application on April 7, 2026, which was formally acknowledged by the authority on April 11. Despite the clear judicial instruction to adhere to the established legal framework, the Collector allowed the 90-day window to lapse without a decision. When he finally issued an order on August 6, 2026, the application was rejected again on virtually the same grounds that the High Court had already found unsustainable, citing a pending proposal to file a Letters Patent Appeal—an appeal that, as of November 2026, had never been initiated.

Judicial Censure of Administrative Conduct

In the recent order, Justice Thakker expressed strong disapproval of the Collector's disregard for the court's institutional dignity. The Court noted that the administrative behavior created unnecessary hardship for the litigant, who had been forced to repeatedly approach the judiciary to seek redress for an application that should have been processed in accordance with settled law.

"This is not the first instance where the Collector has acted as a superpower authority and considering himself as a person, who can act according to his own whims and wish," Justice Thakker observed in the written order. The Court further remarked, "The department or instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per the orders of the Court, and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to."

The High Court held that the Collector's failure to either comply with the order or to approach the judiciary in a timely manner to seek relief signaled an intentional defiance of the administration of justice. The court emphasized that when government functionaries ignore explicit mandates, it undermines the authority of the law, necessitating a response that shifts the financial burden of such non-compliance away from the public treasury.

Restoration and Final Directions

To rectify the situation, the Court has quashed the Collector’s August 6, 2026, order and restored the petitioner's application to its original status. The Collector has been directed to decide the application within the statutory period, strictly following the guidelines provided in the earlier judgment regarding Section 65 of the Code.

The order regarding costs is particularly significant, as it mandates the Collector to deposit ₹1,00,000 with the High Court Registry within one month. The court specified that this amount must be paid from the Collector's own salary. If the official fails to comply, the State authorities are tasked with depositing the amount and recovering it directly from his salary. Once deposited, the funds will be disbursed to the petitioner via electronic mode following verification. This measure serves as a stark reminder of the personal accountability expected of administrative officers when their actions demonstrate a flagrant disregard for the judiciary. The matter remains active, with the petitioner’s application awaiting the required statutory processing under the court's strict supervision.