In a special civil application field before the Gujarat High Court seeking quashing or setting aside of an order dated 06-08-2026 by the Collector, Ahmedabad (respondent 1) and to declare that the permission sought by the petitioner for use of her agricultural land was deemed to have been granted in view of Section 65(1) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, a Single Judge Bench of Justice M.K. Thakker quashed the impugned order and imposed a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on the Collector.
The petitioner had applied under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code for N.A. (non-agricultural) use permission for her agricultural land. Her first application, dated 19-12-2024, was rejected on 11-02-2025. The rejection relied on negative opinions of the Mamlatdar and ALT and of the Collector (Land Reforms). It was said that another party had been entered as occupier, that the land had later been divided, and that no approval under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act had been obtained for those transactions.
The petitioner challenged that rejection by a special civil application and on 02-03-2026, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the rejection. It held that the Collector had acted on grounds distinct from his powers under Section 65, and it directed the petitioner to file a fresh application, to be decided within the statutory period in light of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 4 GLR 2578.
Hence, the petitioner filed a fresh application on 07-04-2026, and the authority acknowledged it on 11-04-2026. She had also made a representation on 02-04-2026 drawing the Collector’s attention to the Court’s directions. No decision was taken within the 90-day statutory period, and on 06-08-2026 the Collector rejected the application again on the same ground. The Collector cited the negative opinions of the ALT and DCLR, and he also noted that the government was considering whether to file an appeal against the order dated 02-03-2026.
The Court noted that a petition was filed to challenge the rejection and that by allowing the said petition, the Court had made certain observations while referring to Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani (supra). It was noted that after the Court’s directions, the petitioner had again filed an application, which was again rejected on the same ground. Further, the Court noted that in addition to the application, the petitioner had also made a representation to draw the Collector’s attention to this Court’s orders and directions.
However, the Court found that ignoring all directions and considering himself above the law, the Collector passed an order on the same line which was earlier quashed by the Court beyond the statutory period of 90 days. Noting the Collector’s statement that the government was in process of filing an appeal, the Court stated that no such appeal had been filed even after passing of seven months.
It was stated that this was not the first instance where the Collector had acted as a superpower authority and considered himself as a person who could act according to his own whims and wish. The Court said that litigants are relegated to the same authorities under the expectation that wisdom would prevail and that they would act in accordance with law. It further opined that every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the Court with due dignity for the institution and that government departments are no exception to it.
The Court said that if there is any difficulty in compliance with Court orders, then government departments or its functionaries are expected to approach the court promptly by taking appropriate recourse available under law. It was held that where government departments neither obeys the order nor approaches the Court in time, then only possible inference in law is that such party disobeys the Court order.
It rejected reliance on a Circular dated 17-10-2026, reasoning that the Circular post-dated the Collector’s decision and enacted no law, since it only directed authorities to act in accordance with the law laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court. The Court stated that when Section 65 provides only to consider the occupancy and nature of the land at the time of deciding the application for NA use permission, there was no requirement to go beyond such aspect.
Hence, the Court quashed the Collector’s order dated 06-08-2026 and restored the petitioner’s application to its original file with a direction that it be decided within the statutory period. Holding that the hardship caused to the litigants had to be compensated by the Collector himself, the Court quantified the cost of litigation at Rs. 1,00,000. It directed the Collector to deposit that sum from his own salary before the registry within one month, failing which the State authority was to deposit it and recover it from the Collector’s salary.
ALSO READ: NISM Certificate Does Not Make One a SEBI-Registered Research Analyst: Gujarat High Court
