ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Parth A. Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners 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 petitioners herein have challenged the impugned order dated 5.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 – District Collector, Kheda pursuant to the online application dated 17.9.2024 seeking Non-Agricultural Use Permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) which consigned to be ‘filed’ on the ground that the 7/12 form of the Old Survey No. 231/4 of the year 1931-32 in the Column of second rights, names of the Ahmad Amzat and Mohamad Amzat as mortgagee and said charge of mortgage has been removed/released vide mutation entry no. 447 dated 25/10/1992 and same was deleted only on the basis of statement, application and panchkyas and it does not reflect neither evidence of completion of mortgage transaction nor order of the competent authority.

4. Mr. Parth A. Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the the No.2 – District Collector, Kheda has no jurisdiction to reject the permission on the ground of pendency of the case before the revenue authority, as grant of N. A. Use Permission does not confer title upon the petitioner with regard to the subject land. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 Collector is only required to consider the legal occupancy of the land in question, which is used for the agriculture purpose. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is mainly submitted that impugned order is without jurisdiction wherein the respondent No.2 – District Collector, Kheda is required to exercise the powers as provided under Section 65 of the Code and submits that the petition may kindly be allowed.

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

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering that names of the mortgagors have been removed vide Mutation Entry No.447 dated 25.10.1992 on the basis of statement, application and panchkyas and thereby Hasinabibi widow of Allaudin Aminmiya became owner and occupier of the land in question. The said mutation entry is still in operation and the same has attained finality.

7. In view of the aforesaid undisputed fact, the impugned order dated 05/11/2024 is passed based on erroneous ground that no evidence of completion of mortgage transaction or order of the competent authority is found. The petitioner No.1 is purchaser of land vide Registered Sale Deed dated 15/05/2024 which was mutated vide Entry No.2877 i.e. Block No.487 admeasuring 7343 Sq.Mtrs., paiki 3672 Sq.Mtrs., on southern side and the petitioner No.2 is purchaser of land vide Registered Sale Deed dated 09/10/2023 which was mutated vide Entry No.2769 i.e. Block No.487 admeasuring 7343 Sq.Mtrs., paiki 3671 Sq.Mtrs., on northern side. The petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the subject land and their names also reflected in the extract of village form No.7 of the said land.

8. It is no longer res integra that while considering the application under Section 65 of the Code the competent authority can summarily inquire into whether the applicant is a legal occupant of the land in question and is engaged in agricultural activities. In the facts of the present case the petitioners herein are legal occupant of land in question.

9. In view of the aforesaid, 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