The Gujarat High Court has directed the Ahmedabad Collector to pay ₹1 lakh from his own salary after he rejected a woman’s application for non-agricultural land use on grounds that had already been declared legally unsustainable.
Justice MK Thakker took a stern view of the Collector’s repeated refusal to follow the Court’s earlier directions in Bhumikaben v Collector, Ahmedabad & Anr., holding that government authorities cannot act as though judicial orders are optional.
The Court observed that the Collector had once again relied on issues relating to past land transactions, despite an earlier ruling restricting the scope of scrutiny in applications seeking conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes.
Taking strong exception to the conduct, the Court remarked:
“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…. 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.”
The Bench said the financial burden arising from the Collector’s conduct should not be shifted to the State exchequer. Instead, the officer himself must compensate the litigant for the hardship caused by forcing her to approach the Court again.
Repeated rejection despite earlier judicial directions
The dispute originated from a landowner’s application under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, seeking permission to convert agricultural land for non-agricultural use.
The Collector had rejected the application in February 2025, citing concerns over previous land transactions and the absence of permission under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, which regulates transfers of agricultural land to non-agriculturists.
The woman challenged the decision before the High Court. On March 2, 2026, the Court quashed the rejection and directed her to submit a fresh application, which the Collector was required to decide within the prescribed statutory period.
The earlier judgment had clearly defined the limits of the Collector’s authority while considering an application under Section 65. The inquiry, the Court had held, was confined to determining whether the applicant was the occupant of the land and whether the land was held or assessed for agricultural purposes.
Questions concerning ownership rights or the legality of previous land transactions could not be examined in such proceedings.
Despite those directions, the Collector rejected the woman’s fresh application, submitted in April 2026, on August 6.
The decision once again referred to previous land transactions and relied on adverse opinions from the Mamlatdar, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms).
The Collector also cited a proposal by the State government to challenge the March 2 judgment. However, the High Court noted that no appeal had been filed against the earlier ruling.
Court warns government officers against undermining judicial authority
The High Court also took note of the Collector’s failure to decide the fresh application within the prescribed timeframe.
It made clear that government departments facing difficulties in implementing a judicial order must approach the Court for appropriate relief rather than disregard its directions.
The Court observed that when an authority neither complies with an order nor seeks clarification or relief, its conduct can only be viewed as disobedience.
It further cautioned that blatant violations of judicial directions reflect an officer’s attempt to undermine the authority of the Court, its institutional dignity and the administration of justice.
The Bench said:
“The hardship which is caused to the litigants is required to be compensated by Collector himself from his own pocket.”
₹1 lakh to be deposited within one month
Allowing the woman’s plea, the High Court quashed the Collector’s order dated August 6 and restored her application for fresh consideration in accordance with the directions issued in the earlier judgment.
The Court ordered the Collector to deposit ₹1 lakh towards litigation costs with the High Court Registry within one month. The amount must be paid from his personal salary.
It further directed that if the Collector fails to make the payment, the State government must deposit the amount and subsequently recover it from his salary.
The money, once deposited and verified, is to be transferred electronically to the petitioner.
Advocates Sunil S Joshi and Amit M Lashwani appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Government Pleader Jay Trivedi represented the Collector and the State government.