ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Nishit Gandhi, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Devanshiba Rana, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State.

2. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 19.5.2023 in No.MVV/BKP/BNS/2/2023 confirming the order passed by the respondent No.3 - Collector, Banaskantha in Order No.JMN/3/Vashi/ 2096 dated 10.1.2023 wherein by the said order the petitioner’s application seeking N.A.Use Permission under Section 65 of the Code is rejected on the ground that the validity of the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT regarding tenancy proceedings and removal of new tenure is required to be inquired and further the status of agriculturist of persons entered by way of Entry No.4566 is not clear and there is variation in area of land.

3. Mr. Nishit Gandhi, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from exercise of powers beyond jurisdiction. The respondent authorities having cross utilized the powers. It is also submitted that the authority cannot go beyond the provisions of Section 65 of the Code and question the validity of an old transaction, more particularly an order of 1970 and question the status of the agriculturist while deciding an application under Section 65 of the Code seeking N.A. Use Permission.

4. Ms. Devanshiba Rana, the learned AGP is not in position to controvert the aforesaid submissions advanced by Mr. Gandhi, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.

5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein applied for N. A. Use Permission for land bearing Survey No.1/5 (Old Revenue Survey No.107/1) admeasuring 2145 Sq.Mtrs., situated at Mouje : Palanpur, Taluka : Palanpur, Dist. Banaskantha by online Application No.60208202100413 on 13.8.2021 which came to be rejected concurrently by the respondent No.2 by cross utilizing the powers on the ground that there is reduction in area and the same amounts to loss of premium to the government and further questioned the agriculturist status of the person entered in land in question in view of Entry No.4566. It is pertinent to note that Entry No.4566 was mutated with respect to family arrangement whereby (1) Maheta Kirtilal Manilal administrator of Maheta Surajmal Lalubhai was given one fourth part (2) Maheta Shantilal Surajmal, one fourth part (3) Maheta Bapalal Keshavlal, one fourth part and (4) heirs of Maheta Ratilal Hiralal, one fourth part. The said entry came to be mutated on 2.9.1982 and duly certified by the competent authority. Since the land being that of joint ownership was distributed among the family members. The said entry has attained finality. The proceedings under the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act are never initiated questioning the status of the petitioner as an agriculturist.

6. 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