Vadodara Collector Anil Dhameliya has been reprimanded by the Gujarat High Court over remarks made against a judicial officer in an affidavit concerning non-agricultural land approval, with the court directing the General Administration Department (GAD) to explain what action it proposes to take against him.
The court virtually called Dhameliya to appear during the proceedings and criticised the manner in which the affidavit described the former in-charge of the Revenue Tribunal. It also directed the GAD’s senior official T. Natarajan to remain present. The department has been asked to place the case papers and the Collector’s affidavit before its Additional Chief Secretary and clarify its proposed action at the hearing scheduled for November 27.
The matter arose from a case involving an application for non-agricultural, or NA, permission. According to the report, the Collector had rejected an NA application on the ground that a revision application was pending before the Revenue Tribunal. The High Court had earlier sought clarity on that position, pointing out that revision applications decided in 2024 could not be treated as pending.
In response, the Collector filed an affidavit. The High Court said, on a prima facie basis, that the affidavit included unnecessary and baseless assertions against the judicial officer who had served as the tribunal’s in-charge. The court observed that the Collector could have limited his explanation to stating that the order on the revision application was not visible on the relevant portal, instead of setting out a history that the court considered inappropriate.
The court further recorded that a senior administrative officer placing such facts in an affidavit could create avoidable controversy. Its observations raise questions about how administrative authorities document decisions in land-approval proceedings, particularly when digital records, tribunal orders and departmental files do not appear to align.
NA permission is a key administrative step for using agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, including several forms of development. Decisions in such cases affect landowners, developers and local planning processes. The court’s intervention in this matter places the conduct of the approving authority, rather than only the individual land application, under scrutiny.
The High Court also noted that Dhameliya is facing separate contempt proceedings in another case. Charges have reportedly been framed in that matter, which remains pending. The court directed that information about those proceedings also be placed before the GAD so that the department can consider the overall administrative record before informing the court of its decision.
The court has therefore given the concerned department an opportunity to determine what action it wishes to take against the Collector before the matter is placed before the court dealing with the pending contempt proceedings. The GAD’s proposed response is to be presented at the November 27 hearing.
