The Gujarat High Court has directed the Ahmedabad Collector to pay ₹1 lakh in litigation costs from his personal salary after finding that the officer had repeatedly disregarded its earlier directions while deciding an application seeking permission for non-agricultural use of land.
Justice M. K. Thakker set aside the Collector's order rejecting her application for non-agricultural (NA) permission and directed the authority to reconsider it in accordance with the Court's earlier judgment.
Background
The dispute arose after Bhumika Brahmbhatt's application for converting agricultural land to non-agricultural use was rejected by the Collector on February 11, 2025. The rejection was based on concerns regarding earlier land transactions and the absence of permission under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act.
Challenging the decision, she approached the High Court through Special Civil Application No. 3097 of 2025.
On March 2, 2026, the High Court quashed the rejection and directed her to submit a fresh application under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. The authority was instructed to decide the application within the statutory period, keeping in mind the principles laid down in Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat.
However, after receiving the fresh application on April 11, 2026, the Collector again rejected it on August 6, 2026, relying on negative opinions from revenue authorities and concerns regarding earlier land transactions.
Examining the Collector's decision, the High Court found that the authority had repeated the very grounds that had already been considered in the earlier proceedings.
The Court emphasised that Section 65 primarily requires the Collector to examine whether the applicant is an occupant of the land and whether the land is being held for agricultural purposes. The provision does not authorise the Collector to conduct an independent inquiry into complicated ownership or title disputes.
Taking a serious view of the repeated non-compliance, Justice Thakker observed:
"Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the Court with due dignity for the institution."
The Court further noted that government departments cannot disregard judicial directions. If authorities face difficulties in implementing an order, they must approach the Court through appropriate legal remedies rather than independently acting contrary to its directions.
The Collector had justified the rejection by stating that the State Government was considering filing a Letters Patent Appeal against the earlier judgment. However, the Court noted that no such appeal had been filed even after more than seven months.
The Court also rejected the reliance placed on the Revenue Department's circular, observing that it did not override the earlier judicial directions.
Holding the Collector responsible for the hardship caused to the petitioner, the High Court quashed the order dated August 6, 2026.
The Court restored the petitioner's application dated April 11, 2026, to its original file and directed the authorities to decide it in accordance with the earlier judgment within the statutory period.
Additionally, the Court imposed litigation costs of ₹1 lakh, directing the Collector to deposit the amount from his own salary within one month. If he fails to do so, the State Government must deposit the amount and recover it from his salary.
The amount is to be disbursed to the petitioner after verification.
Case Details:
Case Title: Bhumika D/o Janakkumar B. Brahmbhatt W/o Chirag Rajndrakumar Rao v. Collector, Ahmedabad & Anr.
Case Number: Special Civil Application No. 13992 of 2026
Judge: Justice M. K. Thakker
Decision Date: 5 November 2026
