Safiya Malik

The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati has held that an application for a land use certificate under the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 — which permits the purchase of agricultural land for industrial purposes — cannot be rejected by the Collector on grounds of technical deficiencies. The Court was hearing a petition filed by a company that had purchased agricultural land for industrial use but whose application for the requisite certificate was turned down by the Collector citing unverifiable revenue entries and missing documentation. Finding that the Collector had exceeded his jurisdiction and failed to apply his mind to the matter, the Court quashed the rejection order and permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application for consideration in accordance with law.

The petitioner company purchased agricultural land situated at Revenue Survey No.65, Village Fazalpur (Ankhi), Taluka Vadodara, for industrial purposes under Section 63AA of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The land changed hands through multiple registered sale deeds over time, with corresponding revenue entries reflecting each transaction. Ultimately, the land was sold to the petitioner through a power of attorney holder by a registered sale deed dated 22.01.2020, and Revenue Entry No.1491 was affected.

Also Read: BREAKING | Supreme Court Raps Trial Court for Citing “AI-Generated Fake Judgments”, Says It May Amount to Misconduct

On 06.04.2024, the petitioner applied through the online portal seeking a certificate under Section 63AA for bona fide industrial use. By order dated 07.07.2024, the Collector rejected the application on grounds that agricultural certificates relating to certain earlier revenue entries could not be verified, the basis of a revenue entry was unclear, and a DLR map was not produced.

The petitioner contended that the Collector acted beyond jurisdiction and that the power under Section 63AA is administrative. The respondent authority argued that upon refusal of the certificate, the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal before the competent authority.

The Court observed, “Section 63AA of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act does not confer to the Collector any quasi-judicial power but he exercises an administrative function.” It further recorded, “The process under Section 63AA is administrative in nature and does not involve any adjudicatory process or quasi-judicial function.”

Explaining the statutory scheme, the Court stated, “Upon receipt of such application the Collector has to satisfy himself that the purchase has been made for bona fide industrial purpose in accordance with the statutory parameters and thereafter, issue a certificate in favor of the purchaser.” It added, “If the Collector is not satisfied then he can refuse to grant the certificate after affording the purchaser an opportunity of hearing and such a rejection would result in the transaction being treated in contravention of Section 63 of the Act.”

With respect to the scope of inquiry, the Court observed, “To this Court, it would appear that the revenue authorities had clearly exceeded their jurisdiction in rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of permission for bona fide industrial use on the ground that there is no details with regard to the share of one of the original owners.” It further recorded, “It would appear that the petitioner having given an undertaking, even though the revenue authorities did not have any right to verify the said aspects in proceedings of the present nature, yet, their objection ought to have been clarified by the undertaking by the present petitioner.”

The Court stated, “Thus, it is clear that on one hand the revenue authorities have overstepped their jurisdiction and on the other hand the revenue authorities did not apply their mind to the issue in question.”

On the nature of rejection, the Court recorded, “Rejection of an application on the ground of deficiency or technical defect cannot be termed as an order on merits under Section 63AA of the Tenancy Act.” It further observed, “If the rejection is based purely on technical or procedural deficiency then filing of an appeal before the Appellate Authority for removal of the same would be contrary to the provisions of Section 63AA.” The Court added, “Thus, an applicant can file a fresh application after removal of deficiencies/ technical objections.”

Also Read: Fraudulent Mutation Entry Is A Nullity, Cannot Confer Legal Rights; Limitation Runs From Date Of Knowledge Of Fraud: Gujarat High Court

The Court directed, “the impugned order dated 07.07.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 – Collector is quashed and set aside. If the petitioner were to prefer a fresh application, the respondent - Collector, Vadodara, to consider and decide the said application afresh, independently and in accordance with law, within a statutory period without being influenced by the earlier order. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Prateek S. Bhatia, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Jwalant Vora, AGP

Case Title: Advance Greenfield Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Surendrakumar Netaram Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: GUJHC:15474
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 11771 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati