Gujarat HC Fines Ahmedabad Collector ₹1 Lakh for Defying Orders

Justice M. K. Thakker quashes Collector's August 6 rejection order

Justice M. K. Thakker quashed the Collector's order dated August 6, 2026, which had rejected the petitioner's application for non-agricultural land use.

The court observed that when an authority ignores a court order without seeking an extension, it indicates an intentional refusal to obey.

Collector repeatedly ignored court directions on land conversion

The court issued the order because the Collector repeatedly rejected a land conversion application in defiance of previous court instructions. The court remarked that this was not the first time the Collector acted as a "superpower authority" based on his own "whim and wish".

The court described the Collector's conduct as a "flagrant violation" that undermines the dignity of the court and the administration of justice. Justice M. K. Thakker stated, "Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the Court with due dignity for the institution".

Dispute stems from Section 65 land conversion application

The case involves the petitioner, Bhumika Brahmbhatt, who is the daughter of Janakkumar B. Brahmbhatt and wife of Chirag Rajndrakumar Rao. The dispute originated when the Collector rejected her initial application for non-agricultural use on February 11, 2025, citing concerns over land transactions and the Gujarat Tenancy Act.

Brahmbhatt challenged this initial rejection through Special Civil Application No. 3097 of 2025.

Court highlights false claims regarding pending Letters Patent Appeal

After the petitioner submitted a new application on April 7, the Collector rejected it by claiming the State was in the process of filing a Letters Patent Appeal against a March 2 order. The petitioner informed the High Court that no such appeal had actually been filed, which resulted in the petitioner being sent from pillar to post.

The court noted that while the Collector justified the rejection by claiming the State government was considering a Letters Patent Appeal, no such appeal had been filed after more than seven months.

Collector must deposit fine within one month

The High Court ordered the Collector to deposit a fine of ₹1 lakh into the court registry within one month. If the Collector does not pay the fine, the State authority is mandated to pay it and recover the amount from his salary.

The court stated that government departments must adhere to court-mandated schedules or seek legal recourse if they encounter difficulties. The petitioner is to receive these funds electronically after the court completes the necessary verification process.

Petitioner to receive funds electronically after verification

LiveLaw reported on 10 November 2026 that the fine amount will be disbursed to the petitioner electronically following a verification process. Once the court completes this verification, the deposited funds will be transferred to the petitioner through an electronic mode.

Court mandates fresh decision on land application

The High Court has set aside the Collector's rejection order, restored the petitioner's application, and instructed that a fresh decision be made. State of Gujarat judgment.

The High Court determined that the Collector had repeated grounds already considered in earlier proceedings.

The court noted that Section 65 does not authorize the Collector to conduct independent inquiries into title disputes. The court rejected the Collector's reliance on a Revenue Department circular, ruling that it does not override judicial directions. The authorities are now directed to make a fresh decision on the land application.