IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15627 of 2025 ==============================================================

SATISHBHAI MANIBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==============================================================

Appearance:

MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==============================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Date : 12/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Kishan Kotak, learned advocate for Mr. Vimal A. Purohit, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the respondent authorities.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2 - District Collector, Vadodara dated 13.06.2025 wherein, the petitioner applied for grant of Non-Agricultural (NA) permission for land bearing Survey No. 1106 admeasuring 18919 sq. mts. of Village: Por, Taluka and District: Vadodara, originally owned and occupied by Ishwardas Gurukeshavdas by application no. 31902202502777.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus:

3.1. Ishwardas Gurukeshavdas was originally the owner and occupier of the land bearing Survey No. 1106 of Village: Por, Taluka and District: Vadodara admeasuring 18919 sq. mts. In the year 1998 the said land in question came to be sold in favour of one Patel Arvindbhai Chimanbhai and Patel Chandrakant Chimanbhai by way of registered sale deed dated 16.10.1998. The mutation entry with respect to sale transaction came to be mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No. 4681. Thereafter, the land in question remained in the name of the purchaser till 2022. Both the aforesaid owners thereafter, sold the land in question to the petitioner by way of registered sale deed dated 29.04.2022 and the mutation entry with respect to the aforesaid sale transaction came to be mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No. 7824 dated 15.06.2022.

3.2. The petitioner preferred application dated 02.07.2022 before the learned District Collector for N.A. use permission, which came to be rejected vide order dated 10.08.2022 on the ground that the petitioner has sought to withdraw the same with a liberty to file fresh. Thereafter, once again such application came to be preferred vide application dated 05.01.2024, which came to be rejected by order dated 22.03.2024 by stating that upon perusal of the revenue record of the land in question old Survey No. 1026 consist of Entry No. 17 in the name of Ranchodbhai Mahraj Pujari and by virtue of Entry No. 291, the land in question is gifted to Rachhodji Mahraj and that therefore, it is not clear as to whether the land in question originally Devasthan Inam or not. Moreover, it was further stated that the learned Prant Officer, Vadodara by virtue of opinion dated 01.03.2024 had opined that the tenure of the land in question is not clear and therefore, no opinion can be granted. Once again the petitioner preferred application dated 10.04.2024, which came to be rejected vide order dated 12.07.2024 on the ground that the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner vide communication dated 03.06.2024 has opined negatively and thereafter upon perusal of the document produced by the petitioner along with application dated 17.06.2024 it transpires that the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner vide Application No. 214 of 1974 dated 16.05.1979 passed an order which clearly transpires that the application is to be decided only after ascertaining the fact as to whether the land is of Devasthan Inam or not.

3.3. It further transpires that thereafter once again the petitioner preferred application for grant of NA permission on 27.08.2024 which came to be rejected vide order dated 25.11.2024 on the ground that the order passed by the learned Charity Commissioner in Change R