What does a High Court do when an Ahmedabad Collector rejects a landowner’s application for non-agricultural use on the very grounds it has already struck down? The Gujarat High Court has ordered the Collector to pay ₹1 lakh in litigation costs from his own salary, observing that he had acted as a “superpower authority”.
Ahmedabad: For the second time, the Gujarat High Court has quashed an order of the Collector, Ahmedabad, refusing a woman permission to use her agricultural land for non-agricultural (NA) purposes. The Collector has also been directed to deposit ₹1 lakh as costs from his own salary for disregarding the Court’s earlier directions [Bhumikaben D/o Janakkumar B Brahmbhatt v. Collector, Ahmedabad & Anr.].
Justice M.K. Thakker passed the oral order on November 5, 2026, in Special Civil Application No. 13992 of 2026. Advocates Sunil S. Joshi and Amit M. Lashwani appeared for the petitioner, while Assistant Government Pleader Jay Trivedi appeared for the Collector and the State.
“Government Departments are no exception”
Justice Thakker held that the Collector, ignoring the Court’s directions and “considering himself above the law”, had passed an order on the same lines as the one already quashed, and beyond the 90-day period. The Court observed:
This is not the first instance where the Collector has acted as a superpower authority and considering himself as a person, who can act according to his own whims and wish.
In the opinion of this Court, every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the Court with due dignity for the institution. The Government Departments are no exception to it.
A department that finds a court order hard to comply with, the judge said, must approach the Court promptly. If it neither complies nor comes to the Court in time, the only inference in law is that it is not carrying out the order, and that inference was drawn against the Collector:
Flagrant violation of the Court’s order would reflect the attitude of the officer concerned to undermine the authority of the Courts, its dignity and the administration of justice.
How the application came back to Court
The petitioner first sought NA use permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, on December 19, 2024. On February 11, 2025, the Collector turned her down, relying on negative opinions of the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal and the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms). Those opinions dealt with earlier sale and division entries involving a cooperative society, for which, according to the Collector, no permission had been obtained under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act.
That rejection was quashed on March 2, 2026, in Special Civil Application No. 3097 of 2025. Relying on Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 4 GLR 2578, the High Court held that under Section 65 the Collector is only to inquire summarily whether the applicant is the occupant and whether the land is held or assessed for agriculture. Title and the validity of past transactions are outside that inquiry. The petitioner was allowed to apply afresh, and the Collector was told to decide within the statutory period.
She filed the fresh application on April 7, 2026, and it was acknowledged on April 11, 2026. It was not decided within 90 days. When the Collector finally ruled on August 6, 2026, he rejected it again, citing the same negative opinions on the same land entries, a pending matter before the SDM (West), and a proposal to the State government on whether to file a Letters Patent Appeal against the March 2 judgment.
What the State said
The AGP submitted that the State was in the process of filing a Letters Patent Appeal when the Collector passed the order, but accepted that no appeal had been filed. He asked that the petitioner be relegated to the Collector once more, saying a fresh application would be considered in line with a Revenue Department circular dated October 7, 2026.
More than seven months had gone by since the March 2 judgment with no appeal, the Bench noted. It also found that the circular came after the Collector’s decision and, in any event, only told authorities to act in accordance with the law laid down by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Directions
Holding that “the hardship which is caused to the litigants is required to be compensated by Collector himself from his own pocket”, the Court allowed the petition and directed that:
- the Collector’s order dated August 6, 2026 is quashed;
- the petitioner’s application dated April 11, 2026 is restored and must be decided within the statutory period in line with the March 2, 2026 judgment in SCA No. 3097 of 2025;
- the Collector must deposit ₹1,00,000 as litigation costs with the High Court Registry within one month from his own salary, failing which the State must deposit it and recover it from his salary; and
- the amount will be paid to the petitioner electronically after verification.
Why the order matters
Two points emerge for revenue officers. A Collector deciding an NA permission application under Section 65 cannot revisit title or old land transactions once the High Court has said that falls outside his jurisdiction. And a stated intention to appeal is not a licence to ignore a binding judgment: if the State wants relief, it must actually go to court. By fixing the costs on the officer personally, with recovery from salary if he does not pay, the Court has shifted the price of non-compliance from the public exchequer to the individual decision-maker.
Case Title: Bhumikaben D/o Janakkumar B Brahmbhatt W/o Chirag Rajndrakumar Rao v. Collector, Ahmedabad & Anr. [R/Special Civil Application No. 13992 of 2026]
Bench: Justice M.K. Thakker, Gujarat High Court
Date of Order: November 5, 2026
Appearances: Sunil S. Joshi and Amit M. Lashwani for the petitioner; Jay Trivedi, Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondents
![[2020 Delhi riots] Death of Muslim Man Allegedly Beaten by Police & Forced to Sing National Anthem| Delhi HC Orders CBI Investigation](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-4-3.png?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)
