Gujarat High Court
Advance Industrial Park vs State Of Gujarat on 23 February, 2026
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9147/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9147 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
==============================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================================
ADVANCE INDUSTRIAL PARK
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==============================================================
Appearance:
PRATEEK S BHATIA(8629) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 23/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned
AGP waives service of Rule for the respondents.
2. By way of the present petition, petitioner herein has prayed for
the following reliefs:
“7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, and such other as may
be advanced at the time of hearing of this Petition, the petitioner
above named, most respectfully prays that:
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Mon Mar 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 02 21:15:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9147/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or
writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction, to quash and set aside the order dated 07.03.2024
having its number as 360/19/11/023/2024 passed in
Application No.21911202309603 (Annexure-A);
(B) Your lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
or any other writ of appropriate nature, order or direction,
directing the respondent no.2 to grant Certificate under Section
63AA of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
for land situated at Revenue Survey No.217 Village-Vemardi,
Taluka- Karjan, Vadodara in the interest of justice;
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition,
Your Lordships may be pleased to stay further proceedings of
order dated 07.03.2024 having its number as INDUSTRIAL
PAARK 360/19/11/023/2024 passed in Application PARTNER
No.21911202309603 (Annexure-A);
(D) Grant such other and further relief(s) as may be deemed fit in
the interest of justice and equity.”
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are such
that the petitioner herein had purchased land situated at Revenue
Survey No. 217, Village-Vemardi, Taluka-Karjan, Vadodara (herein-
after referred to as “the subject land”) for industrial purposes under
the provisions of Section 63AA of the Gujarat Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The subject land was originally running
in the name of Patel Manubhai Mahijibhai and the present petitioner
was desirous of setting up industrial unit purchased the same from
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Mon Mar 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 02 21:15:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9147/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
Patel Manubhai Mahijibhai by way of registered sale deed dated
07.03.2022 and the effect of the same was given in the revenue record
by way of Revenue 49 B Entry No. 3694.
3.1. The petitioner herein filed application through online E-Portal
i.e. Application No. 21911202309603 on 01.01.2024 before the
respondent no. 2 authority for obtaining certificate under Section
63AA of the Tenancy Act for use of the subject land for Industrial
purposes. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned
order on 22.02.2024 rejecting the application of the petitioner on the
grounds that notice for change of use of land issued by the Mamlatdar
and Krushipanch dated 03.03.1973 has been withdrawn by way of
order dated 07.02.2024, however on 03.03.1973 the possession was of
the original owner and therefore, the present application is required to
be rejected. The said order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the Deputy
Collector attained finality.
4. Mr. Bhatia, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted
that the impugned order dated 07.03.2024 is wholly arbitrary, mala-
fide, and passed without due application of mind, and therefore,
deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the
impugned order is unreasonable and suffer from lack of cogent
reasons. It is further contended that the respondent authority has
travelled beyond the jurisdiction conferred under Section 63AA of the
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Mon Mar 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 02 21:15:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9147/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
Act and therefore, the impugned order is without authority of law.
4.1. That the power exercised by the Collector under Section 63AA of
the Act is administrative in nature and not quasi-judicial.
Consequently, the principle of functus-officio or bar on filing of a fresh
application does not apply. That as per Section 63AA(3)(a) of the Act,
upon receipt of notice from the purchaser within 30 days of purchase,
the Collector is required to hold an inquiry to satisfy himself that the
purchase was made for bonafide industrial purposes and thereafter
issue a certificate. Rejection of the application de-hors the said
provision is, therefore, beyond jurisdiction. The impugned order is
thus, unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed and set aside.
4.2. Mr. Bhatia, learned advocate submits that it is not in dispute
that at the time when the impugned order was passed, the order dated
07.03.2024 was not placed before the competent authority. It is
submitted that the petitioner herein would prefer a fresh application
seeking certificate of an agriculturalist under Section 63AA of the
Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which may be
considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.
5. Per contra, Mr. Parikh, learned AGP for the respondents submits
that the Collector was bound by the statutory provisions and no error
has been committed by the Collector, while rejecting the application.
Learned AGP submits that the scheme of the Act is that upon an
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Mon Mar 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 02 21:15:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9147/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
applicant making an application for grant of certificate for bona fide
industrial purpose, the Collector after making an inquiry has to
satisfy himself that the purchaser has validly purchased the land for a
bona fide industrial purpose in conformity with the provisions of Act.
Thereafter, a certificate to such effect can be issued in the form
prescribed.
5.1. The learned AGP submitted that if the Collector is not satisfied
then after giving an opportunity of being heard, he can refuse
certificate to the person in question and the sale of land would be
deemed to be in contravention of Section 63AA. Learned AGP relied
upon Clause 3d(i) of Section 63AA and submitted that upon refusal to
issue a certificate by a Collector, the purchaser may file an appeal to
the State Government or such officer as having been authorized by the
State Government. Learned AGP would submit that the application of
the present petitioner having been rejected, it was incumbent upon
the petitioner to have preferred an appeal before the Special Secretary,
Revenue Department. Thus learned AGP submits that this Court may
not to interfere with the impugned order.
6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and
perused the documents on record.
7. Section 63AA of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act does not confer to the Collector any quasi-judicial power but he
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Mon Mar 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 02 21:15:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9147/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
exercises an administrative function. Section 63AA enables a person
to purchase or enter into an agreement for sale of agricultural land,
notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 65B of the
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, provided that the land is intended
to be used for bona-fide industrial purpose. The provision further
requires the purchaser to intimate the Collector within 30 days of
purchase and furnish relevant particulars, failing which fine can be
imposed. Upon receipt of such application the Collector has to satisfy
himself that the purchase has been made for bona fide industrial
purpose in accordance with the statutory parameters and thereafter,
issue a certificate in favor of the purchaser. If the Collector is not
satisfied then he can refuse to grant the certificate after affording the
purchaser an opportunity of hearing and such a rejection would result
in the transaction being treated in contravention of Section 63 of the
Act. The statute also provides a right of appeal to the State
Government or an officer notified by it, against the Collector’s refusal.
Therefore, the process under Section 63AA is administrative in nature
and does not involve any adjudicatory process or quasi-judicial
function.
7.1. Further, if a party whose probable rights may have been
affected had not taken appropriate steps at the relevant point of time,
the revenue authorities were not required to protect the civil rights of
such a person more particularly in absence of any objection or any
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Mon Mar 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 02 21:15:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9147/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
order by any Court or a Tribunal as the case may be.
7.2. To this Court, it would appear that the revenue authorities had
clearly exceeded their jurisdiction in rejecting the application of the
petitioner for grant of permission for bona fide industrial use on the
ground that there is no details with regard to the share of one of the
original owners. In any case, it would appear that the petitioner
having given an undertaking, even though the revenue authorities did
not have any right to verify the said aspects in proceedings of the
present nature, yet, their objection ought to have been clarified by the
undertaking by the present petitioner. Thus, it is clear that on one
hand the revenue authorities have overstepped their jurisdiction and
on the other hand the revenue authorities did not apply their mind to
the issue in question.
7.3. Further, rejection of an application on the ground of deficiency
or technical defect cannot be termed as an order on merits under
Section 63AA of the Tenancy Act. If the rejection is based purely on
technical or procedural deficiency then filing of an appeal before the
Appellate Authority for removal of the same would be contrary to the
provisions of Section 63AA. Thus, an applicant can file a fresh
application after removal of deficiencies/ technical objections.
8. In the present case, the impugned order reveals that the appeal
preferred by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Mon Mar 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 02 21:15:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9147/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
technical deficiencies. In view of the above discussion and reasoning,
the impugned order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2
– Collector is quashed and set aside.
9. If the petitioner were to prefer a fresh application, the
respondent – Collector, Vadodara, to consider and decide the said
application afresh, independently and in accordance with law, within
a statutory period without being influenced by the earlier order.
10. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
Direct Service is permitted.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
KUMKUM
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by SHARMA KUMKUM MAHENDRA(HC02349) on Mon Mar 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 02 21:15:34 IST 2026