Gujarat High Court Quashes Collector's Order Cancelling Non-Agricultural Permission in Land Revenue Matter — Violation of Natural Justice and Lack of Jurisdiction. Collector's Suo Motu Cancellation of NA Permission After 14 Years Without Notice or Hearing Set Aside Under Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 100
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Rameshbhai Keshavlal Patel, through his Power of Attorney, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad, cancelling a non-agricultural (NA) permission granted to him under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. The NA permission was originally granted on 28.04.2008 in respect of land bearing Survey No. 100/2, admeasuring 1,920 square meters, situated at Village: Narol, Taluka: Daskroi, District: Ahmedabad. The petitioner had purchased the land by a registered sale deed dated 17.06.2008 and had constructed a residential house thereon. The Collector, by the impugned order, cancelled the NA permission on the ground that the land was reserved for a public purpose, namely, a garden, under the Development Plan. The petitioner contended that the Collector had no jurisdiction to cancel the permission after 14 years, and that the order was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing, in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The State and other respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the Collector had the power to cancel the permission if it was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, and that the land was reserved for a public purpose. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the Collector's order was unsustainable. The court observed that the Collector had not issued any show-cause notice or afforded any hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The court further noted that the NA permission had been granted after following due process, and the petitioner had acted upon it by constructing a house. The court held that the Collector's suo motu cancellation after 14 years, without any notice, was arbitrary and violative of natural justice. The court also noted that the Collector had not cited any provision of law under which he could cancel the permission after such a long period. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to restore the NA permission and maintain status quo. The court also allowed the connected Special Civil Application No. 9226 of 2025 and the civil applications for stay.

Headnote

A) Land Revenue - Non-Agricultural Permission - Suo Motu Cancellation - Section 65, Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 - The Collector cancelled the NA permission granted to the petitioner after 14 years without any notice or hearing, on the ground that the land was reserved for a public purpose. The High Court held that the Collector lacked jurisdiction to cancel the permission suo motu after such a long period, and the order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order was quashed and set aside. (Paras 1-27)

B) Natural Justice - Right to Hearing - Cancellation of Permission - The Collector's order cancelling NA permission was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The High Court held that such an order is a nullity and cannot be sustained. The principle of audi alteram partem is a fundamental tenet of natural justice. (Paras 15-20)

C) Limitation - Suo Motu Cancellation - Delay and Laches - The Collector cancelled the NA permission after 14 years without any explanation for the delay. The High Court held that such belated exercise of power is arbitrary and not permissible under law. (Paras 21-25)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Collector had jurisdiction to suo motu cancel a non-agricultural permission granted under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, after a period of 14 years, without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and whether such cancellation is sustainable in law.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the petitions, quashed and set aside the Collector's order dated 20.12.2022, and directed the respondents to restore the NA permission and maintain status quo.

Law Points

  • Natural justice
  • Suo motu cancellation
  • Non-agricultural permission
  • Jurisdiction
  • Limitation
  • Gujarat Land Revenue Code
  • 1879
  • Section 65
  • Section 211
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 707

R/Special Civil Application No. 9060 of 2025 with R/Special Civil Application No. 9226 of 2025

2026-03-17

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

2026:GUJHC:22054

Mr. Percy Kavina, Senior Counsel with Mr. Kuldeep K. Adesara for Petitioner; Mr. Jayneel Parikh, AGP for Respondent No.1; Mr. Riddhesh Trivedi for Respondent No.2; Mr. Chinmay M. Gandhi and Ms. Nikita C. Gandhi for Respondent No.3; Mr. M.K. Vakharia for Respondent No.4

Rameshbhai Keshavlal Patel through POA Nilambhai Narendrabhai Patel

State of Gujarat & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Collector's order cancelling non-agricultural permission.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of Collector's order dated 20.12.2022 and restoration of NA permission.

Filing Reason

Collector cancelled NA permission granted in 2008 without notice or hearing.

Previous Decisions

NA permission granted on 28.04.2008; Collector cancelled it on 20.12.2022.

Issues

Whether the Collector had jurisdiction to suo motu cancel the NA permission after 14 years? Whether the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner: The Collector had no jurisdiction to cancel the permission after 14 years without notice or hearing; the order is arbitrary and violative of natural justice. Respondents: The Collector has power to cancel permission obtained by misrepresentation or fraud; the land is reserved for public purpose.

Ratio Decidendi

The Collector's suo motu cancellation of a non-agricultural permission after 14 years, without any notice or opportunity of hearing, is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and lacks jurisdiction. Such an order is a nullity and cannot be sustained.

Judgment Excerpts

The impugned order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad is quashed and set aside. The Collector had no jurisdiction to cancel the NA permission after 14 years without any notice or hearing.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 9060 of 2025 challenging the Collector's order dated 20.12.2022. A connected petition, Special Civil Application No. 9226 of 2025, and civil applications for stay were also filed. The High Court heard all matters together and delivered a common oral judgment on 17.03.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879: Section 65
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Defendants in Partnership Dissolution Dispute by Holding Unregistered Relinquishment Deed Admissible. Court Rules That a Partner's Interest in Partnership Assets Comprising Immovable Property Is Movable Property, Not Requiring R...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Charges Against Accused in SC/ST Act Case for Lack of Sanction — Proceedings Initiated Without Mandatory Sanction Under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Are Void Ab Initio.