"Acting Like a Superpower": Gujarat High Court Slams Ahmedabad Collector, Fines Him ₹1 Lakh Over Rejected NA Land Bid

AHMEDABAD — In a stinging rebuke of administrative overreach, the Gujarat High Court has penalised the Ahmedabad Collector with a personal ₹1 lakh fine for repeatedly defying judicial directives over a non-agricultural (NA) land conversion application. Justice Moksha K. Thakkar came down heavily on the district administration, ruling that the Collector acted as if possessing "superpower" authority while handling a woman's long-standing property dispute.

The court ordered that the ₹1 lakh penalty must be paid directly from the Collector's salary and deposited with the High Court registry within one month to compensate the applicant woman for persistent litigation harassment. If the payment fails, state authorities are mandated to deduct the fine straight from the official's salary. Once deposited, the entire sum will be handed over to the affected applicant, Bhumikaben.

The Chronology: How the Dispute Unfolded

The legal battle stems from a routine land use request that met with administrative roadblocks over consecutive years:

• 19 December 2024: Applicant Bhumikaben filed an official application under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, seeking to convert her agricultural land for non-agricultural use.

• 11 February 2025: The Ahmedabad Collector initially rejected the application, citing past land transactions, questions regarding tenancy law Section 63 approvals, and whether the applicant qualified as a farmer.

• First High Court Intervention: Challenging the initial rejection, the applicant moved the High Court, which set aside the order and directed the Collector to review the case afresh within a legally prescribed timeframe.

• April 2026: Following the court's earlier ruling, Bhumikaben resubmitted her NA permission application.

• 6 August 2026: In direct defiance of judicial expectations, the Ahmedabad Collector rejected the application a second time, repeating the exact same grounds. The administration cited negative opinions from the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), previous transaction histories, and claimed that the state government was in the process of filing a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against the previous court ruling.

However, during the current proceedings, the state government's lawyer explicitly conceded before the High Court that no such appeal had ever been filed.

Court Slams "Superpower" Attitude and Contemptuous Conduct

Expressing profound displeasure, Justice Thakker observed that this instance is not an isolated event where a Collector has functioned as an autonomous superpower operating entirely on personal whim. The court emphasised that state departments and public servants are bound to respect judicial orders and execute them within stipulated timelines without arbitrary delays.

The bench noted that when government officials neither comply with directives nor approach the court through proper legal channels within time, the only legal conclusion is that the authorities are intentionally disrespecting the administration of justice. The court likened the Ahmedabad Collector's conduct to contempt of court, warning that such dismissive attitudes undermine the dignity and authority of the judiciary.