ORDER :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. Issue RULE, returnable forthwith. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State authorities. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken-up for final hearing.

2. Heard Mr. N.V. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State authorities.

3. The petitioner herein is constrained to approach this Court invoking Article-226 of the Constitution, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned action and colourable exercise of powers on the part of the respondent no. 2- District Collector, Anand, in rejecting / filing N.A. application dated 03.02.2026 bearing No. 31507202600760, vide order dated 17.03.2026 (Annexure-A) in relation to the agricultural land bearing Survey / Block No. 624/1 admeasuring 7487.00 sq.mtrs. situated at Mouje/Village: Nisraya, Tal.: Borsad, Dist.: Anand.

4. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate submits that by order dated 19.01.2026 passed in SCA No. 494 of 2026, the petition filed by the petitioner herein came to be allowed, wherein, the petitioner challenged the communication / order dated 25.11.2024, consigned to ‘file’ the grant of N.A. use permission, on the ground that the record shows the mortgage entry as entry no. 1857 in the revenue record and though the land is of old tenure land, in the second right, the entry nos.1857 and 2205 are shown. The petitioner rendered explanation to the same on 27.09.2024 which was duly produced with the said petition. In the aforesaid petition, the Court directed the respondent authority to exercise the powers under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (for short ‘the Code’), wherein, the respondent authority was directed to take into consideration that the petitioner herein is occupier of the land in question, holds an agricultural land. However, by the impugned order, petitioner’s application is rejected on the same ground that the title of the land is not clear.

5. Mr. Parikh, learned AGP is not in a position to controvert the factual position that the impugned order dated 17.03.2026 and earlier order / communication dated 25.11.2024, author of both the orders is the same person and the impugned order is also passed on the same ground, on which the earlier order dated 25.11.2024 was quashed and set aside, relegating the petitioner to approach the respondent authority by preferring an application for N.A. use permission afresh and is also not in a position to controvert the submissions advanced by Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.

POSITION OF LAW:

6.1. It is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down in LPA No. 1181 of 2025 and allied matters with CA (for condonation of delay) No. 4716 of 2025, wherein, the Hon’ble Division Bench reiterated the ratio laid down in Tusharbhai Ghelani. 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 laid down.

15. The writ court records that in the first