ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Nishit P. Gandhi, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Dharitri Y. Pancholi, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Dharitri Y. Pancholi, 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 challenged the impugned order dated 7.5.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 – District Collector, Patan pursuant to the Application No.30301202500202 seeking Non-Agricultural Use Permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) which came to be rejected on the ground that the measurement of original holding of land is increased more than 5% after re-survey promulgation.

4. Mr. Nishit P. Gandhi, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid is contrary to the powers that can be enforced under Section 65 of the Code. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 is required to summarily inquire whether the petitioner is the legally occupying the land in question and is undertaking agricultural activities. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is in possession of the land in question admeasuring 5649 square meters for which the mutation entry is recorded in the 7/12 record. It is submitted that in view of thereof, there is no anomaly in the land occupied by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitoiner’s application is required to be considered on its own strength for the land admeasuring 5649 square meters. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has erred in relying on the report of the D.I.L.R. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein has no concern, claim or connection with the said excess / increase of land pursuant to re-survey and does not seek NA permission beyond his purchased share.

5. Ms. Dharitri Y. Pancholi, the learned AGP is not in position to controvert the submissions advanced by Mr. Gandhi, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein is in occupation of the land admeasuring 5649 square meters and the same is recorded in 7/12 record, more particularly, it is the contention of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner herein that the petitioner herein has no concern, claim or connection with the said excess / increase of land pursuant to re-survey and does not seek NA permission beyond his purchased share. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order is passed by respondent No.2 relying upon the negative opinion of the DILR is such that, it would not disentitle the petitioner herein for NA permission.

7. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1181 of 2025 and allied matters. It is apposite to refer to Para – 14 to 18 and 25 of the said judgment, which reads thus:

“14. The impugned order dated 24.12.2024 records that the affidavit filed by the Collector, Vadodara was taken on record and the said affidavit though started with an apology, but the collector tried to justify the reasons for passing the orders impugned dated 28.10.2024 and 29.10.2024 for rejection of the NA application, more particularly, as regards the probability of the provisions of Agricultural Land Ceiling Act being violative on account of the Entry No. 780 dated 06.02.1985. It is noted by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned that the Collector, Vadodara has failed to appreciate the law laid down by this court in the case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani and Anr. Vs State of Gujarat and Ors. [2019 (4) GLR 2578], which was the basis of passing the judgement and order dated 31.01.2024 wherein the scope of inquiry under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 has been l