The court also questioned how District Collectors were using their authority under Section 65 of the Land Revenue Code, which gives them power to allow the conversion of agricultural land for other purposes.
Gujarat: The Gujarat High Court, on Wednesday, advised the state government to seriously think about creating a code of conduct for its senior officers when they appear in court. The High Court said this would help ensure that “the dignity of the State government is not sullied.”
This strong observation came from Justice Nikhil Kariel while he was disposing of a petition related to the Vadodara District Collector’s repeated rejection of applications for converting agricultural land to non-agricultural (NA) status — even after the High Court had passed favourable orders in the petitioners’ favour.
The comments were made in connection with an exchange in court between Justice Kariel and Dr Jayanti Ravi, the Additional Chief Secretary (ACS), Revenue, who was present in court on Tuesday.
She had submitted an affidavit offering an “unconditional and unjustified apology” during contempt proceedings initiated against the current Vadodara Collector Anil Dhameliya and former Collector Bijal Shah.
During the hearing, the ACS reportedly questioned the court’s priorities. Justice Kariel took serious note of this and said that even though the court had shown leniency, the matter needed to be thought about carefully by all stakeholders — including the judiciary itself.
“The oral submissions made by the Additional Chief Secretary went on to the extent of casting aspersions on the Court, more particularly when the ACS had remarked why this Court was so much concerned about this one matter. The ACS had also questioned the priorities of the Court. While this Court had magnanimously, as this Court is expected to do, overlooked such transgressions on part of the ACS, more particularly based upon the unconditional and unjustified apology by the ACS in her affidavit, yet the issue requires serious introspection at the level of the State as to whether a code of conduct is required to be laid down when Senior Officers approached this Court and addressed this Court…”
Justice Kariel stressed that government officers appear in court not in their personal capacity, but as representatives of the government. So, whatever they say is considered the stand of the state.
ALSO READ: Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association: A Legacy of Defiance and Judicial Advocacy
“Ultimately, the officers are not appearing before this Court in their individual capacity, they are appearing before this Court in their capacity as officers of the State Government. Statements made by such officers are attributable to the State Government and therefore, ultimately, it is the State Government, which will have to look into whether a code of conduct will have to be laid down so as to ensure that the dignity of the State Government is not sullied before this Court… Finally it is the time that we Courts introspect whether we should sacrifice institutional dignity on the altar of magnanimity.”
The court also questioned how District Collectors were using their authority under Section 65 of the Land Revenue Code, which gives them power to allow the conversion of agricultural land for other purposes.
“It is time that the State comes out with some kind of instructions for its officers to follow while exercising powers under Section 65 of the Land Revenue Code.”
The High Court pointed out that despite two earlier orders favouring the petitioner, the District Collector only complied after contempt proceedings were initiated in a third petition. The court had imposed fines of Rs. 50,000 on Bijal Shah and Rs. 25,000 on Anil Dhameliya in each of the three cases.
“In spite of (two previous orders of the HC), the orders of this Court have been complied with only after the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act had been initiated in the third petition. While the State and its officers are harping upon ‘State interest’, it is a matter of introspection as to what State interest has been served in stretching the issue to such an extent when the aspect on which the NA permission was not being granted to the petitioners had taken place approximately half a century ago with intervening transactions where the ownership had changed twice. Except for the State being required to be burdened with unnecessary cost of such litigation, this Court fails to appreciate what State interest has been subserved by not granting the petitioners the NA order. The issue required appropriate introspection by the State.”
Background
The issue goes back to a 2023 writ petition where the Vadodara District Collector had denied NA status to certain land parcels, even though the petitioners had already secured a favourable High Court order on January 31, 2024. That order was not challenged by the state but also not implemented.
In December 2024, the HC again ruled in favour of the petitioners. However, in March 2025, the District Collector again rejected the application for NA status. This led to the third round of contempt proceedings. Only then did the authorities comply with the court’s directions.
The High Court said the State must reconsider how such matters are handled, especially when the original land issues were nearly 50 years old and ownership had changed hands twice.
