The authority considering a request for change in land use is restricted to verifying that the applicant is the current occupant and the land is used for agricultural purposes; it lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate historical property titles or the validity of legacy revenue entries.

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

2. Heard Mr. Prateek S. Bhatia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State authorities.

3. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.01.2026, passed in Non-Agricultural (NA) Application No.31903202509307 whereby, the petitioner’s application for NA permission, came to be rejected questioning the status of the predecessor of the petitioner as an agriculturist dated 06.08.2020 is not shown in the revenue record.

4. Mr. Prateek S. Bhatia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the said mutation entry No.5274 is otherwise in the name of the petitioner’s predecessor. The petitioner herein purchased the land-in-question by way of a registered sale deed dated 10.07.2024 for which, mutation entry No.5848 is recorded in the revenue record. It is submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein holds agriculture land and is also an agriculturist. To substantiate the submission, reliance is placed on the affidavit, which is part of the application seeking NA permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, by way of Parishith – A, the said information is produced on record. It is submitted that rather than considering the aforesaid undisputed aspect, the impugned order is passed on the erroneous grounds with respect to the mutation entry No.4111, mutated in the revenue record on 29.11.2011 and the mutation entry No.5274, mutated in revenue record on 06.08.2020, the same having attained finality.

4.1 Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in case of Tushar Ghelani and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2019 (4) GLR 2578, to submit that while considering an application under Section 65 of the Code, the respondent No.2 assumes power to summarily verify whether the applicant is occupying the land-in-question legally and undertaking agriculture activities.

5. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State authorities is not in a position to controvert to the aforesaid however, submits that no interference is called for in the impugned orders passed by the competent authorities as the petitioner’s predecessor’s status as an agriculturist is not clear.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein purchased the land bearing Survey No.845 (Old Survey No.7290/1), Village : Madodhar, Taluka : Vaghodia, District : Vadodara, by way of a registered sale deed on 10.07.2024 for which, mutation entry No.5848 is recorded in the revenue record duly produced at Annexure – D to the petition.

6.1 The petitioner herein applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) permission before the respondent No.2 by way of Application No.31903202509307. The said application is duly produced at Annexure – F, page 22 to the petition wherein, the petitioner by way of affidavit (Prishisht - A) produced the details with respect to the petitioner’s status of an agriculturist and the petitioner holds an agricultural land, details of which are also produced on record.

7. Considering the aforesaid, taking into consideration the definition of the term ‘holding’ as provided under Section 3(12) and the term ‘occupant’ under Section 3(16) of the Code, the same is elaborately considered in case of Tushar Ghelani and Ors. Vs