JUDGMENT :

AIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned AGP waives service of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State authorities.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

3. Heard Mr. H.R. Prajapati, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned AGP appearing for and 'on behalf of the respondent – State authorities.

4. By way of the present petition, petitioners herein have challenged the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure-A), rejecting the petitioner's application seeking Non-Agricultural (NA) permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (for short ‘the Code’), by an application dated 26.09.2025 (09.09.2025) [Annexure-G], with respect to the land bearing Survey /Block No. 105, Old Survey / Block No.76, T.P. Scheme No. 29, Final Plot No. 270. The petitioner's application came to be rejected on the ground of the pendency of RTS appeal, wherein, the mutation entry nos. 1469 and 1470 are challenged and pending before the Prant Officer.

5. Mr. Prajapati, the learned advocate, submits that the impugned order is contrary to the statutory powers provided under the statutory dictum of Section-65 of the Code. It is submitted that it is no longer res-integra that pendency of revenue or RTS proceedings before a competent authority, the respondent-Collector could not have rejected the petitioner's application seeking Non-Agricultural use permission. To substantiate his submission, reliance is placed on the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal 895 of 2023 dated 11/7/2023. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the present petition be allowed and the matter be remanded back to the Collector for fresh adjudication.

6. Ms. Pancholi, the learned AGP, is not in a position to contradict the aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Prajapati, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners.

7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are the owners and occupiers of the land bearing Survey /Block No. 105, Old Survey / Block No.76, T.P. Scheme No. 29, Final Plot No. 270, total admeasuring 10,117 sq.mtrs. It is upon objections raised by the legal heirs of one of the brothers, i.e. Mathurji Thakor, who relinquished his rights as as back as in the year 1979, having challenged the succession entry nos. 1469 and 1470.

8. In the opinion of this Court, pendency of RTS proceedings would not in any way of the petitioners to prefer an application for NA permission. The aforesaid issue, as referred to herein-above by Mr. Prajapati, the learned advocate, is also no longer res-integra, as held in the case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2019 (4) GLR 2578 as well as in Letters Patent Appeal 895 of 2023, decided on 11/7/23. It is apposite to reproduce paragraph 2.1, 4 and 5 which reads thus:

“2.1 The respondents who were the original petitioners who had approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Collector. By the order impugned in the petition, the Collector had rejected the application seeking non-agricultural permission on the ground of pendency of RTS proceedings.

4. For the purposes of brevity, paras 7 to 9 of the oral order of the learned Single Judge read as under:

“7. By the above referred two judgments namely Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani(supra) and Bhayabhai Vajshibhai Hathalia (supra), it is by now well settled that while exercising the powers under Section 65 of the Code, the Collector, is to examine that the person applying, is occupant of the land. For the purpose of Section 65, it would be sufficient that the person applying for NA permission is occupant of the land, considering the fact that Section 65 nowhere provides that the applicant should hav