Gujarat High Court directs Ahmedabad Collector to pay ₹1 lakh from salary for disregarding its order

The Gujarat High Court recently directed the Ahmedabad Collector to pay ₹1 lakh in costs from his salary for disregarding its directions in connection with the examination of a woman's application for permission to put her land to use for non-agricultural purposes [Bhumikaben v Collector, Ahmedabad & Anr.].

Justice MK Thakker was hearing a plea filed by a landowner whose application for permission to convert agricultural land for non-agricultural use was rejected by the Collector a second time despite an earlier High Court order directing him to reconsider it.

Justice Thakker found that the Collector had rejected the woman's application on a ground that the Court had already struck down as unsustainable.

The Court criticised the Collector for acting like it is above its directions, observing,

"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 went on to opine that the Collector must personally pay for the hardship caused to the litigant, who was forced to re-approach the Court because of the authority's conduct.

"The hardship which is caused to the litigants is required to be compensated by Collector himself from his own pocket," the Court said.

The petitioner had initially applied for permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which governs the conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes.

The Collector had rejected her application in February 2025, citing objections concerning earlier land transactions and the absence of permission under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (which restricts transfer of agricultural land to non-agriculturists without prior permission).

The petitioner had challenged the rejection before the High Court. The Court quashed the Collector's order on March 2, 2026 and directed the landowner to submit a fresh application. The Collector was directed to decide it within the statutory period.

In that earlier judgment, the Court had also held that while considering an application under Section 65, the Collector's inquiry is limited to determining whether the applicant is the occupant of the land and whether it is held or assessed for agricultural purposes. The Collector cannot examine questions of title or the legality of earlier land transactions in such proceedings, the Court clarified.

However, after the petitioner submitted a fresh application in April 2026, the Collector rejected it again on August 6. He cited negative opinions from the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal and the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), and again cited earlier land transactions concerning the petitioner's property.

The Collector also referred to the State government's proposal to challenge the March 2 judgment before the High Court.

However, the Court, in its November 5 judgment, noted that no such appeal had yet been filed.

Taking exception to the Collector's conduct, the Court observed that government authorities could not disregard judicial directions and act according to their own preferences.

The Court also noted that the Collector had failed to decide the fresh application within the prescribed period.

It said that government departments must either comply with court orders or promptly approach the court if they face difficulties in doing so.

"Where the Government departments neither obeys the order nor approach to the Court in time, then only possible inference in law is that such party disobeys the order of the Court. In other words, intentionally not carrying out the order of the Court. 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," said the Court.

It subsequently quashed the Collector's August 6 order and restored the petitioner's application for fresh consideration in accordance with its earlier judgment.

The Court directed the Collector to deposit ₹1 lakh in litigation costs with the High Court Registry within one month, from his own salary. It further ordered that if the Collector fails to deposit the amount, the State government must pay it and subsequently recover it from his salary.

The Court also directed that the paid amount be given to the petitioner through electronic transfer after verification.

Advocates Sunil S Joshi and Amit M Lashwani appeared for the petitioner.

Additional Government Pleader Jay Trivedi appeared for the Collector and the State.

[Read Judgment]