Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Bharvad Harishbhai Becharbhai and others, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Court, challenging an order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the respondent authorities rejecting their application for Non-Agricultural (NA) use permission. The land in question was Survey No. 314/Paikee situated in Village Harni, Taluka Vadodara (North), District Vadodara. The rejection was based on two grounds: (I) alleged possible breach under land-fragmentation/ALC/ULC norms, and (II) reliance on the DLCR's inconclusive/opined inability to furnish a verified affirmative report. The petitioners argued that the grounds were not sustainable as the DLCR report was inconclusive and did not establish any actual breach. The court, after hearing Mr. Prateek S. Bhatia for the petitioners and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State, held that the impugned order could not be sustained. The court noted that the DLCR's inconclusive report could not be the sole basis for rejection and that the authority had not provided any substantive evidence of breach. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the petitioners' application for NA permission afresh, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier rejection. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Use - Non-Agricultural Permission - Rejection on Grounds of Possible Breach of Land Fragmentation/ULC Norms - The petitioners sought NA permission for land at Survey No. 314/Paikee, Village Harni, Vadodara. The authority rejected the application solely on the ground of possible breach of land-fragmentation/ULC norms and reliance on an inconclusive DLCR report. The High Court held that such grounds are not sustainable as the DLCR report was inconclusive and the authority failed to provide any substantive evidence of breach. (Paras 3-5) B) Land Use - Non-Agricultural Permission - Reliance on Inconclusive DLCR Report - The DLCR opined inability to furnish a verified affirmative report. The court held that an inconclusive report cannot be the sole basis for rejection of NA permission, as it does not establish any actual breach. The impugned order was quashed and set aside. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of Non-Agricultural use permission on the grounds of alleged possible breach of land-fragmentation/ULC norms and reliance on an inconclusive DLCR report is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 06.11.2025 is quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the petitioners' application for NA permission afresh, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier rejection. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Non-Agricultural permission cannot be rejected solely on grounds of possible breach of land fragmentation/ULC norms without conclusive evidence
- DLCR's inconclusive report cannot be the sole basis for rejection
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
