Gujarat High Court Quashes Rejection of N.A. Use Permission in Ceiling Case. Ceiling Proceedings Dropped and Land Allotted to Cooperative Society, Subsequent Purchaser Cannot Be Denied Permission Under Section 65 of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 11
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Hirenbhai Meghajibhai Dhameliya, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Court, aggrieved by the order dated 13.3.2024 passed by the respondent authority rejecting his application under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 for Non-Agricultural Use Permission. The land in question, situated at Mouje: Samadhiyala, Taluka: Gadhada, Dist. Botad, was originally owned by Nanbha Kalubha, who received it by way of gift in 1959 (Entry No.43). Subsequently, ceiling proceedings under the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act were initiated, but were dropped and the land was forfeited to the State Government and allotted to Bhavnagar Taluka Anusuchit Jati Samuhik Kheti Sahkari Mandali on 4.2.1987 (Entry No.157). Thereafter, the heirs of Nanbha sold the land to Ranchhodbhai Beladiya and Bhavnaben Beladiya by registered sale deed dated 19.3.2007, which was certified on 23.11.2008. The petitioner purchased the land from the said vendors by registered sale deed dated 25.5.2022, which was certified on 25.7.2022. The petitioner applied for N.A. permission for prawn/shrimp farming, which was granted by the Director of Fisheries on 11.10.2023. However, the revenue authority rejected the N.A. permission application on the ground that there was a ceiling case regarding the land in question and that Nanbha Kalubha held land exceeding the ceiling limit. The petitioner contended that the ceiling proceedings were dropped long ago and the land was allotted to a cooperative society, and thus the rejection was unsustainable. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the ceiling proceedings were dropped and the land was forfeited and allotted to a cooperative society in 1987. Therefore, the subsequent purchasers cannot be denied N.A. permission on the ground of past ceiling violations. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondent authority to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh within eight weeks, taking into account the fact that the ceiling proceedings were dropped. The petition was allowed accordingly.

Headnote

A) Land Revenue - Non-Agricultural Use Permission - Section 65 Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Ceiling Proceedings - The petitioner purchased land by registered sale deed in 2022 and applied for N.A. permission for prawn farming. The application was rejected citing a ceiling case from 1959 regarding the original owner. The court held that since the ceiling proceedings were dropped and the land was forfeited and allotted to a cooperative society in 1987, the subsequent purchasers cannot be denied permission on that ground. The rejection was quashed and the authority was directed to reconsider the application. (Paras 3-6)

B) Land Revenue - Revenue Entries - Gift Deed - Sale Deed - The land was originally gifted to Nanbha Kalubha in 1959. The ceiling proceedings were dropped and the land was forfeited to the State and allotted to a cooperative society in 1987. Thereafter, the land was sold by the heirs of Nanbha in 2007 and subsequently purchased by the petitioner in 2022. The court noted that the revenue entries were certified and the petitioner had valid title. (Paras 4-5)

C) Land Revenue - Estoppel - Subsequent Purchaser - The authority cannot deny N.A. permission to a subsequent purchaser based on a ceiling case that was already concluded. The court directed the authority to decide the application afresh within eight weeks, considering the fact that the ceiling proceedings were dropped. (Para 6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 for N.A. Use Permission on the ground of a pending ceiling case is sustainable when the ceiling proceedings were dropped and the land was allotted to a cooperative society.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 13.3.2024, and directed the respondent authority to reconsider the petitioner's application under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 afresh within eight weeks, taking into account the fact that the ceiling proceedings were dropped.

Law Points

  • Non-agricultural use permission
  • Gujarat Land Revenue Code 1879 Section 65
  • Agricultural Land Ceiling Act
  • Ceiling proceedings dropped
  • Subsequent purchaser
  • Estoppel
  • Revenue entries
  • Gift deed
  • Sale deed
  • Cooperative society allotment
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:7594

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6975 of 2024

2026-01-20

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

2026:GUJHC:7594

S. M. Kikani, Mehul Sharad Shah, Jayneel Parikh

Hirenbhai Meghajibhai Dhameliya

State of Gujarat & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 for Non-Agricultural Use Permission.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 13.3.2024 and a direction to the respondent to grant N.A. Use Permission.

Filing Reason

The petitioner's application for N.A. Use Permission was rejected on the ground of a pending ceiling case regarding the land.

Previous Decisions

The ceiling proceedings were dropped and the land was forfeited to the State and allotted to a cooperative society in 1987. The petitioner purchased the land in 2022.

Issues

Whether the rejection of N.A. Use Permission on the ground of a ceiling case is valid when the ceiling proceedings were dropped and the land was allotted to a cooperative society.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the ceiling proceedings were dropped long ago and the land was allotted to a cooperative society, and thus the rejection was unsustainable. The respondent State argued that there was a ceiling case and the original owner held land exceeding the ceiling limit.

Ratio Decidendi

Once ceiling proceedings are dropped and the land is forfeited and allotted to a cooperative society, subsequent purchasers cannot be denied N.A. permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 on the ground of past ceiling violations.

Judgment Excerpts

By way of present petition, the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.3.2024 wherein the petitioner’s application dated 1.1.2024 preferred under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 for grant of N. A. Use Permission stood rejected on the ground that, there has been a ceiling case regarding the land in question earlier... The proceedings under the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act came to be dropped and the land was ordered to be forfeited to the State Government. The said land was thereafter allotted to Bhavnagar Taluka Anusuchit Jati Samuhik Kheti Sahkari Mandali on 4.2.1987...

Procedural History

The petitioner applied for N.A. Use Permission on 1.1.2024, which was rejected on 13.3.2024. The petitioner then filed the present Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court, which was heard and allowed on 20.1.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879: 65
  • Agricultural Land Ceiling Act:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Quashes Rejection of N.A. Use Permission in Ceiling Case. Ceiling Proceedings Dropped and Land Allotted to Cooperative Society, Subsequent Purchaser Cannot Be Denied Permission Under Section 65 of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Reinstatement of Daily Wage Worker in Unfair Labour Practice Case. Petitioner completed 240 days of service and was orally terminated without following Section 25(f) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.