The competent authority lacks the jurisdiction under land revenue statutes to adjudicate title disputes or investigate historical encumbrances while considering an application for land use conversion. The inquiry must be restricted to verifying that the applicant is the rightful occupant of the land.

JUDGMENT :

VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.

1. Hear Mr. Tarak Damani, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, the learned AGP waives service of rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State.

3. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs :-

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to admit and allow the present Petition.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash and set aside order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 2 Additional Collector, Navsari below Application No. 32402202502712 filed by the Petitioner (Annexure A);

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to convert the tenure/nature of the land being Block/Survey No. 559, admeasuring 2024 sq. mtrs, having original Block/Survey No. 58 of Village: Kalakachha, Taluka: Jalalpore, District: Navsari from agricultural to Non-Agricultural land on any terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper;

(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further relief as deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.”

4. Briefly stated the petitioner herein is owner and occupier of Agricultural Land bearing Block/Survey No.559 admeasuring 2024 sq.mtrs., having original Block/Survey No.58 of Village : Kalakachha, Taluka : Jalalpore, Dist. Navsari (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject land’ for short) having purchased the subject land by way of Registered Sale Deed on 4.8.2025 duly registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kalalpore vide Registration No.6702 of 2025 having purchased the land from his predecessor in-title.

5. Mr. Tarak Damani, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits the petitioner herein applied for grant of N. A. Use Permission on 23.9.2025 by way of Application No.32402202502712 with the office of the respondent No.2 herein i.e. the learned Collector, Navsari under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) seeking permission to convert tenure of the land from agriculture to non-agriculture. The said application is rejected on erroneous ground relying on the negative opinion by the respondent No.3 – Mamlatdar.

5.1 It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 - Additional Collector, Navsari dated 11.11.2025 is contrary to the powers as provided to the respondent No.2 while considering an application for grant of N. A. Use Permission under Section 65 of the Code as laid down in the case of Tushar Ghelani.

6. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, the learned AGP is not in position to controvert the submissions advanced by Mr. Damani, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. It is submitted that if the petitioner were to prefer a fresh application, the same would be decided by the authority in accordance with law.

7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the impugned order dated 11.11.2025 wherein the petitioner’s Application No.32402202502712 is rejected by the respondent No.2 herein, it is not in dispute that the said application is rejected relying on the opinion by the respondent No.3 dated 13.10.2025 that there is an Entry No.51 dated 17.6.1953 reflecting in the revenue record of the land in question whereby it seems that one Mr. Narrottamdas Tribhovandas has given loan of Rs.275/- for which an encumbrance is created in the land in question. It is further opined that there is no further entry reflecting as to whether the said debt is clear and as to whether the said encumbrance has been cancelled, the detail of which is not reflecting from the available and record. In view of such negative opinion rendered by the respondent No.3 herein the petitioner’s application is erroneously rejected.

8. In the opinion of this Court,