Rejections based on procedural technicalities do not bar subsequent applications under the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, as the Collector's powers are administrative, not quasi-judicial.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

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 has been filed seeking below mentioned reliefs:-

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside Orders dated 06.01.2024 and 09.04.2024 having its number 49/19/03/023/2024 and 498/19/03/023/2024 passed in Application No.21903202308206 and 21903202400296 (Annexure-A);

(B) Your lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ of appropriate nature, order or direction, directing the Respondent No.2 to grant Certificate under Section 63AA of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for land situated at Revenue Survey No.754, Village-Kotambi, Taluka-Waghodia, Vadodara in the interest of justice;

(C) Grant such other and further relief(s) as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity.”

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner has purchased land bearing Revenue Survey No.754, situated at Village Kotambi, Taluka Waghodia, District Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as the “subject land” for the sake of brevity) for industrial purposes under the provisions of Section 63AA of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The subject land was originally recorded in the name of one Patel Vasudev Kantibhai, who sold the same to the present Petitioner by way of a registered sale deed dated 03.10.2023. The said transaction has been duly reflected in the revenue records by way of Entry No.8731 and as per the current revenue record, the petitioner’s name is running as the lawful owner of the subject land. The petitioner, being desirous of setting up an industrial unit, filed an online application on 18.11.2023 bearing Application No.21903202308206 before respondent No.2 for issuance of a certificate under Section 63AA of the Tenancy Act, seeking permission to use the subject land for industrial purposes. The respondent No.2, however, vide order dated 06.01.2024, rejected the said application on the ground that the opinion of the Stamp Duty Authority was required in respect of B-Entry Nos.1340 and 3257. Thereafter, the petitioner once again filed an online application on 03.02.2024, bearing Application No.21903202400296 before respondent No.2 seeking the same certificate under Section 63AA of the Act. The respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 09.04.2024 rejected the said application on the ground that since the earlier application under Section 63AA had already been rejected and the said order had not been quashed or set aside, the subsequent application was not maintainable.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Bhatia for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders dated 06.01.2024 and 09.04.2024 are wholly arbitrary, mala fide, and passed without due application of mind, and therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that both the orders are unreasonable and suffer from lack of cogent reasons. That the respondent No.2 has erroneously relied upon the opinion of the District Inspector of Land Records, Vadodara, which recorded a negative opinion regarding measurement, and on such basis proceeded to reject the applications. It is further contended that the respondent authority has travelled beyond the jurisdiction conferred under Section 63AA of the Act and therefore, the impugned orders are without aut