Gujarat High Court
Maniben Mangalbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 6 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 17/04/2026
Pronounced On : 06/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14703 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MANIBEN MANGALBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5
NAJMUDDIN R MEGHANI(7834) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5
MR JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents.
2. By way of preferring present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought for the following main Page 1 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined relief:
"(A) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to accept the premium considering the value of land at the rate of Rs.2000/- as decided on 18.09.2003 or at the rate of Rs.14,500/-
as decided on 29.03.2007 and to convert the land bearing Block No.95 (Old Revenue Survey No.77+7/2 and Final Plot No.114 of village Althan, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat from new tenure to old tenure on the basis of the application dated 07.10.2002 (registered on 21.10.2002) and review/reminder application dated 11.11.2003.
(B) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the delay caused in deciding an application for conversion of land from new tenure to old tenure is due to negligence or due to administrative reasons on the part of the respondents and that would not entitle the respondents to charge the premium at higher rate of Jantri Price"
3. The facts of the case of the petitioners, as mentioned in the petition, can be summarized in a nutshell as under:
3.1. The petitioners are the joint owners of ancestral property being land bearing Block No.95 admeasuring 11432 sq. mtrs. of village Althan, which has been sub-divided into three separate Final Plots i.e. Final Plot No.114 admeasuring 4272 sq. mtrs., Final Plot Nos. 35A and 35B admeasuring 962 sq. mtrs.Page 2 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined and 1133 sq. mtrs., respectively. The issue involved in the present petition is qua Final Plot No.114 i.e. land admeasuring 4272 sq. mtrs. only (it shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'subject land' for short). The petitioners have given power of attorney to one Mr. Mahendrabhai Chhotalal Doshi for the Final Plot No. 114.
3.2. The petitioners were holding the land by way of tenancy rights having restrictions u/s 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (it shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act' for short). Thus the land was of 'new tenure' and therefore, the petitioners have made an application dated 7th October, 2002 to the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Pranth, for conversion of the land in question from new tenure to old tenure and the said application was submitted in the office of the Deputy Collector on 21.10.2002.
3.3. That the District Valuation Committee under the Chairmanship of the District Collector, Surat, passed a resolution dated 18.09.2003 in respect of as many as 27 applications. So far as the application made by the present petitioners is concerned, by way of resolution No.6, it was unanimously decided to charge premium at the rate of Rs.2,000/- for some portion of subject land and at the rate of Rs.2,500/- for the remaining part of the subject land. It is the case of Page 3 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined the petitioners that they had no knowledge about passing of the aforesaid resolution dated 18.09.2003 and they came to know about the said fact only when they obtained the relevant papers under the Right to Information Act along with the copy of one Resolution dated 23.02.2006.
3.4. Thereafter, vide letter dated 20.03.2004, the District Collector informed the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, inter alia, stating that the market value of the subject land is Rs.85,44,000/- and the amount of premium would come to Rs.59,80,800/- (70% of the market value) and since the market value of the land is more than Rs.50 lacs, the valuation of the land in question is required to be fixed by the State Level Valuation Committee. Therefore, the decision taken by the District Valuation Committee is referred to the Secretary, Revenue Department for approval. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 - Revenue Department, vide letter dated 17.08.2004 asked the Collector to submit information qua the market value of the subject land along with the map as per the guideline issued by the Chief Town Planner and also to give information as to whether the Town Planner has made valuation of the land in question or not.
3.5. Thereafter, the Chief Town Planner, vide letter dated 19.10.2004, forwarded the Valuation Report to Page 4 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined the Revenue Department, which crystallizes the position of fact that the Chief Town Planner had also valued the land in question at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per sq.mtr.
3.6. It is the case of the petitioners that though the valuation report of the Chief Town Planner of the State of Gujarat was forwarded to the respondent No.1 herein by letter dated 19.10.2004, the respondents failed to communicate the amount of premium to the petitioners even till today. Therefore, the petitioners, through their power of attorney holder, approached the office of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 on number of occasions, however, it was informed that final decision is not taken.
3.7. It is the case of the petitioners that upon inquiry, only in the last week of January, 2006, the petitioners came to know that the District Valuation Committee has already fixed the market value of the land in question by decision dated 18.09.2003 and, therefore, petitioners have obtained the copy of the communication under the Right to Information Act.
3.8. Thereafter, the petitioners have preferred Special Civil Application No. 4869 of 2006, inter alia, praying for direction against the respondents to communicate the amount of premium to the petitioners for conversion of the land in question Page 5 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined from new tenure to old tenure. That during the course of hearing of the petition, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that appropriate authority had already taken the decision and that the same is pending before the State Government for its approval. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, therefore, vide order dated 25.04.2006, directed the State Government to take an appropriate decision and determine the amount of premium for the subject land in accordance with law and on merits as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order and also communicate the ultimate outcome to the petitioners.
3.9 As per the case of the petitioners, instead of taking the final decision, the Revenue Department, vide letter dated 26.07.2006, informed the Collector that since two years have already been lapsed after taking the decision by the District Valuation Committee, a fresh decision may be taken immediately after calling the meeting of the District Valuation Committee. Thus, it is the case of the petitioners that though specific direction was given by the Coordinate Bench of this Court to the State Government to determine the amount of premium preferably within a period of three months, Revenue Department had again asked the Collector to call the meeting of the District Valuation Committee and again asked him to decide the value of the land. The said Page 6 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined action on the part of the Revenue Department is against the statement made by the learned AGP and only with a view to delay the entire proceedings.
3.10.As per the case of the petitioners, before taking decision dated 26.07.2006, no opportunity of hearing was afforded and it was not communicated to the petitioners. As per the case of the petitioners, after a period of three months, when the petitioners inquired about the amount of premium, they came to know about such communication and, therefore, they obtained the copy under the RTI Act by making an application dated 20.09.2006. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 26.07.2006, the petitioners have preferred Special Civil Application No.22164 of 2006 before this Court, inter alia, praying to quash and set-aside the order dated 26.07.2006 and further prayed that the respondents may be directed to fix the market value of the land in question either as per the date of application dated 07.10.2002 or at the most as per the date of 18.09.2003 on which the District Valuation Committee has fixed the market value of the subject land for calculating the amount of the premium. That by way of several other petitions, even the validity of Section 43 and the validity of Government Resolution dated 04.07.2008 has been challenged before this Court. Therefore, as the petition filed by the petitioners was also remained pending and thereafter it was heard Page 7 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined and decided along with the group of petitions by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2011, whereby, the Division Bench has upheld the validity of Section 43 and circular dated 04.07.2008. It is the case of the petitioners and also contended by learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioners that though the subject matter of the petition filed by the petitioners is altogether different and petitioners have merely challenged the communication/order dated 26.07.2006 issued by the Revenue Department to the office of Collector to once again carry out the exercise of revaluation of the land in question, the said petition has wrongly been clubbed along with other petitions and Letters Patent Appeals.
3.11. As per the case of the petitioners, thereafter also they waited for the decision of the respondents on the basis of the circular dated 04.07.2008. But, till date, no communication is received by the petitioners. That by resolution dated 04.07.2008, the State of Gujarat has resolved that the valuation of the land of new and impartible tenure and of restricted tenure, is to be done as per the rate of Jantri (as per annual statements of rate 2006) and as per the amendments made from time to time. It is the case of the petitioners that even as per the said circular, the petitioners were ready and willing to pay the amount of premium to the Government, but, Page 8 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined till date, either no decision is taken or communicated to the petitioners. Thereafter, another Government Resolution dated 03.05.2011 was issued by the Revenue Department, whereby, it was decided to charge the premium at the rate of 40% of the jantri value.
3.12. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, some similarly situated persons have filed Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, challenging the validity of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as also the validity of Circular dated 04.07.2008. The Hon'ble Apex Court, vide judgment and order dated 25.02.2014, upheld the validity of Section 43 and the Circular dated 04.07.2008. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically observed that application for deciding premium cannot be kept pending indefinitely and Collector has to decide such applications, as far as possible, within 90 days from the date of receipt of the application and in the event the application is not being decided within 90 days, the Collector has to record the reasons for the delay.
3.13 That after the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, which was rendered on 03.05.2011, the petitioners have made several inquiries with the Collector, Surat about the determination of the Page 9 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined amount of premium. However, it was informed to the petitioners that since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, they could not take any decision. Thereafter, even after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which came to be passed in February, 2014, the petitioners again inquired with the office of the Collector as regards the determination of the amount of premium. However, all the attempts of the petitioners went into vain.
3.14. As per the case of the petitioners, again, by preferring an application in March, 2015, the petitioners through their power of attorney holder sought information under the Right to Information Act regarding the decision, if any, taken by the respondents pursuant to the application made by the petitioners in the year 2002. That the Revenue Department, by letter dated 01.07.2015, forwarded the copies of the internal correspondences to the power of attorney holder. The copies of the correspondences are appended along with the memo of the petition. It appears that earlier, it was decided by the respondents that the value of the subject land was Rs.2000/- and it was sent for approval to the Revenue Department. It also appears from the correspondence that after the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SCA No.4869 of 2006 dated 25.04.2006, once again the revaluation was made and District Valuation Committee had decided the value of the land Page 10 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined at Rs.14,500/-. But thereafter, no final approval was given by the Revenue Department. Thereafter, even opinion was sought from the office of the Government Pleader, and though five reminders were sent by the Collector vide letter dated 15.12.2009, but, no opinion appears to have been received by him. It appears from the correspondence that even Revenue Department sent reminders dated 25.06.2007, 19.11.2009, 11.09.2007, 23.11.2009, 29.11.2008, 05.11.2009, 08.01.2010, 28.06.2010, 07.11.2010, but the Collector has not provided the details to the Revenue Department. Thereafter, it appears that in view of the decision in SCA No.22164 of 2006 dated 03.05.2011, the matter was sent back to the Collector by the Revenue Department.
3.15. Thus, it is the case of the petitioners that from the aforesaid communications, it is established that though the decision is already taken by the Collector in the year 2003 and again in the year 2007, no approval was accorded by the Revenue Department and for the delay caused by the respondents, petitioners cannot be penalized.
3.16 It is also the case of the petitioners that though the application dated 07.10.2002 and subsequent review application have been decided, the decision has not been communicated to the petitioners. That earlier decision was taken and Page 11 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined value of the land was fixed at Rs.2000/-. Thereafter, once again, in view of the order passed by this Court, a decision was taken on 03.05.2007, whereby, the value of the land was fixed at Rs.14,500/-. However, the petitioners were never asked to deposit the amount of premium, though they are ready and willing to pay it at the rate of Rs. 14,500/- as determined by the Collector as per order passed by this Court. Thereafter also, till date neither the application is decided nor any final decision is communicated to the petitioners and petitioners came to know about the internal correspondences by way of information received under the Right to Information Act. Hence, present petition is filed.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the respondents.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Mehul Shah for the petitioners submits that the impugned inaction on the part of respondents in not communicating the final decision is causing great prejudice to the petitioners and is also in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the delay which is caused at the instance of the respondent authorities in fixing the market value of the land in question, without there being any fault on the part of the petitioners, is Page 12 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined nothing but the procedural impropriety and lapse and therefore for such a procedural lapse, the petitioners cannot be penalized by asking higher rate of jantri value. He further submits that the petitioners have filed an application to convert the land in question from new tenure to old tenure on 07.10.2002, 07.10.2003 and subsequent review application. It appears from the record that decision was taken by the Collector and the District Valuation Committee on 18.09.2003, however as the 70% of the market value of the land was more than Rs.50 lacs, it was sent for approval to the Revenue Department. He further submits that it is, therefore, incumbent upon the Revenue Department to take appropriate decision within a reasonable period, as observed and held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble Court in numerous case laws. However, no decision is taken by the revenue authorities.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that thereafter the petitioners preferred a petition being Special Civil Application No. 4869 of 2006 before this Court and vide order dated 25.04.2006, the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondent authorities to determine the amount of premium of the subject land as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months. He submits that instead of complying with the said directions issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Page 13 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Court and deciding the amount of premium within the stipulated time, the Revenue Department once again asked the Collector to make revaluation of the land in question on the ground that two years period has been passed by. He submits that once again, vide decision dated 29.03.2007, the Collector, in consultation with the District Valuation Committee, had determined the price of the subject land at Rs.14,500/- per sq. mtr. Thereafter, the minutes and the decision of the District Valuation Committee was sent to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department for approval. However, for one or other reasons, till date, no decision is taken nor it is communicated to the petitioners.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that even the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors., v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2014(1) GLH 609 held that the application cannot be kept pending indefinitely and Collector has to decide such application within 90 days from the receipt of the application on the lines of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Patel Raghav Natha's case. He further submits that in the present case, though application was made on 07.10.2002, till date, either it is not decided or the decision is not communicated to the petitioners. He further submits that petitioners have also sought certain information from the concerned Revenue Page 14 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Authority through Right to Information Act, and in turn, they received certain information from internal correspondence entered into by and between the concerned revenue authorities. Perusal of the said correspondence makes it clear that firstly the decision was taken in the year 2003 and thereafter another decision was taken on 29.03.2007, whereby, the value of the land has been determined. Therefore, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors. (supra), though the jantri rate would be applicable from the date of the sanction by the Collector, and not from the date of the application made by the party, the Collector has to decide the said application within a period of 90 days and it cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Thus, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that on 29.03.2007, the value of the subject land was decided at the rate of Rs.14,500/- per Sq. Mtr. and by letter dated 03.05.2007 it was communicated to the Revenue Department. Thereafter, in view of Government Resolution dated 04.07.2008, the value of the land is required to be considered as per the jantri value at that relevant point of time. He submits that in view of the Resolution dated 04.07.2008, price was already Page 15 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined determined by the Government, however, the respondents have caused unreasonable delay in determining the amount of premium. Therefore, the delay can be attributed only to the respondents and not to the petitioners. He further submits that it is the stand of the respondent authorities that due to pendency of the petition before this Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, they could not take any decision on the application of the petitioners. However, under the said lame excuse, the respondents cannot escape from their liability to decide the amount of premium. He further submits that it is obligatory on the part of the respondents authority to communicate the decision of fixing the amount of premium to the petitioners and if the petitioners fails to make the payment of the said amount, in that event, the delay can be attributable to the petitioners.
9. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has, while upholding the validity of the aforesaid G.R. dated 04.07.2008, reduced the levy of premium from 80% (as prescribed in G.R dated 04.07.2008) to 40% of the jantri value, vide judgment dated 25.02.2014 rendered in the case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors. (supra). He submits that during the interregnum period, the Revenue Department has also issued one GR dated 03.05.2011, whereby, the levy of premium is fixed at Page 16 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 40% of the Jantri value. He, therefore, submits that it is the duty of the respondents to levy the premium either considering the rate of the subject land at Rs.2000/- as determined by the District Valuation Committee on 18.09.2003 or at the rate of Rs.14,500/-, which was determined on 29.03.2007.
10. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has drawn the attention of this Court to an interim order dated 21.09.2017 passed by this Court in Civil Application (For Direction) No. 12057 of 2017 in Special Civil Application No.14703 of 2015 and submitted that as per the policy of the Government prevalent at that relevant point of time, vide aforesaid order, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties, the petitioners were directed to deposit an amount of Rs.6,91,20,960/- as a premium with the office of the Collector, Surat and the concerned revenue authority was directed to accept the aforesaid amount and pass an appropriate order as regards the conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that despite the aforesaid clear cut directions, the concerned revenue authority has not complied with the said directions and therefore, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has once again passed an order dated 16.10.2018, whereby, the Collector was directed to take an appropriate Page 17 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined decision and place the same on record before the next date of hearing of the petition i.e. 04.12.2018. Despite that either the decision is not taken or it is not communicated to the present petitioners. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has further submitted that thereafter, once again, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order dated 20.01.2023, whereby, directions came to be issued to the concerned revenue authority to place on record the decision taken by the concerned revenue authority and in case if the decision is not taken then the reasons for not taking the said decision shall be placed before the Court by way of an affidavit. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that the aforesaid orders passed by the this Court clearly show and suggest that the concerned revenue authorities have shown total disrespect towards the orders passed by the Court and they sat tight over the issue which is pending since last 24 years.
11. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has further submitted that it is admitted by the respondent No.2 by way of an affidavit that pursuant to the application dated 11.11.2003 filed by the petitioners through their power of attorney holder Mr. Mahendrabhai Chhotalal Doshi for conversion of land, considering the opinion received from the Deputy Collector, Choryasi, Prant Surat dated 25.02.2004, a proposal dated 22.03.2004 was forwarded to the State Government. However, Page 18 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined before the aforesaid proposal is decided, the petitioners have filed Special Civil Application No.4896 of 2006. Learned advocate Mr. Shah, therefore, submits that thus though the proposal was sent on 25.02.2004 by the concerned revenue authority to the State Government, till the filing of the petition by the petitioners in the year 2006, the said proposal has not been decided by the State Government. Thus, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors., the concerned revenue authority is expected to take a decision within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the said application/proposal and if the concerned authority failed to take any decision and sat tight over the said application/proposal, in that event, the petitioners cannot be penalized and they cannot be compelled to pay the amount of premium as per the prevalent policy of the State Government. He, therefore, submits that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent authorities to accept the premium considering the value of the subject land at the rate of Rs.2000/- as decided on 18.09.2003 or at the rate of Rs.14,500/- as decided on 29.03.2007 and to convert the subject land from new tenure to old tenure and after calculating the amount of premium based on the aforesaid rate of either Rs.2,000/- or Rs.14,500/-, remaining amount of premium deposited by the petitioners before the concerned revenue Page 19 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined authority after considering the price of the subject land at Rs.40,262/- per sq. mtrs., may be refunded.
12. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Shah has relied upon the following decisions.
1. The decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2014(1)GLH 609;
2. Common CAV Judgment dated 03.05.2011 of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.10548 of 2008 and allied matters;
3. The decision of this Court in case of Karadia Meragbhai Kanabhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 JX (Guj.) 43;
4. The decision of this Court in case of Pravinkumar Keshavji Tank v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2012(5) GLR 4211;
5. The decision of this Court in case of Bharatbhai Kantilal Jethwa v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2006(2) GLH 303.
13. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jay Trivedi has objected present petition Page 20 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined with vehemence and after referring the affidavit-in- reply filed by the respondent - revenue authorities submitted that by way of present petition, the petitioners have prayed for direction upon the respondents to accept the premium considering value of land of Rs.2,000/- per Sq. Mtrs. as decided on 18.09.2003 or Rs.14,500/- per Sq. Mtrs. as decided on 29.03.2007 and to convert the subject land from new tenure to old tenure on the basis of application dated 07.10.2002 and reminder application dated 11.11.2003 made by the petitioners. He has submitted that the present petition is required to be rejected only on the preliminary objection that the petition has been filed by the dead person. He submits that petitioner Smt. Maniben Mangalbhai Patel passed away on 26.11.2005. It is well settled that a dead person cannot file a petition. He further submits that it is well settled that upon the death of an executor of the deed of power of attorney, the POA stands cancelled automatically and therefore the present petition, which is filed by the POA holder of deceased Smt. Maniben M. Patel is also required to be dismissed solely on that ground.
13.1.In rejoinder, learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioners has submitted that it is true that one of the persons, who has given power of attorney, i.e. Maniben Patel passed away on 26.11.2005 but it is an admitted fact that power of attorney executed in Page 21 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined favour of Mahendrabhai Chhotalal Doshi is irrevocable power of attorney coupled with interest and out of five persons, if one person is passed away, then also the irrevocable power of attorney would continue to operate and would not cease to operate. He submits that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Her Highness Shantadevi Pratapsinh Rao v. Savjibhai H. Patel And Ors., reported in 1998(2) GLR 1521 observed and held that, "No doubt, in the case of Garapati Venkanna (supra), the Madras High Court had held that, where a power of attorney has been executed by several principals in favour of a person and one of the principals having distinguished interest in subject-matter of power of attorney dies, the death terminates the power of attorney. This view was taken by the Madras High Court because, the Court found that there was no authority coupled with an interest and, therefore, the argument raised on the basis of Section 202 of the Contract Act could not prevail. Here is a case in which we have already held as above that it was a case of an agency coupled with interest. In our opinion, the position of law with reference to Section 202 of the Contract Act is, therefore, very clear that the cases in which the agency is coupled with interest and there is no express contract for termination, there cannot be any termination even by death and, therefore, the factum of death of the principal during the pendency of the suit cannot lead to the termination of the agency.
Page 22 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined The necessary ingredients required under Section 202 of the Contract Act so as to hold that the agency could not be terminated in the facts of the present case are, therefore, clearly established and we also find that even the factum of death of the principal cannot bring about the termination of the agency." He, therefore, submits that the said contention raised by the learned AGP would not be sustained.
14. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi has further submitted that the petitioners have not come with the clean hands and they have suppressed the material fact regarding the construction carried out by them over the subject land, which was not converted from new tenure to old tenure and thereby they have committed breach of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. It is further submitted that the subject land is of restricted tenure under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the petitioners have not taken prior permission from the competent revenue authority for putting up any construction. It is submitted that the first application dated 07.10.2002 was made by the petitioners before the Deputy Collector, Choryasi, Surat to remove the restrictions Under Section 43. However, thereafter, the petitioner have written a letter dated 15.09.2003 to the concerned authority, inter alia, stating that since the transaction with purchaser is cancelled, kindly file Page 23 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined the above referred application dated 07.10.2002 and accordingly the Deputy Collector, vide order dated 03.10.2003, filed the said application. He further submits that thereafter another application dated 11.11.2003 was preferred by the petitioners through their power of attorney holder viz. Mahendrabhai Chhotalal Doshi for conversation of land and after considering the opinion received from the Deputy Collector, Choryasi, Prant Surat, a proposal was forwarded to the State Government on 22.03.2004. However, before the above referred proposal is decided, the petitioners have filed Special Civil Application No. 4896 of 2006 before this Court and vide order dated 25.04.2006, this Court had issued directions to the concerned revenue authorities to take a decision within a period of three months. Thereafter, the Revenue Department addressed a letter dated 26.07.2006 to the Office of the Collector, Surat to the effect that since more than two years period is passed by from the date of earlier proposal dated 20.03.2004, exercise of revaluation of the subject land is required to be carried out.
15. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi further submits that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid communication/order of the Revenue Department, the petitioners herein had preferred a petition being Special Civil Application No.22164 of 2006, inter alia, praying to quash and set aside the Page 24 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined aforesaid communication/order of the Revenue Department. However, during the pendency of the said proceedings, the matter was referred to the Division Bench to decide it in line with other similarly situated matters. He further submits that so far as the office of the Deputy Collector is concerned, vide communication dated 03.07.2007, the proposal was once again forwarded to the State Government after revaluation. However, since the petition was pending before the Division Bench of this Court, the issue with respect to determination of market price in the present matter could not be decided. He further submits that the Division Bench of this Court has, vide CAV judgment dated 03.05.2011 passed in the aforesaid petition and allied matters, held that the crucial date for determination of the premium is the date on which the Collector grants such permission and not the date when the petitioners have made an application. He further submits that the said decision of the Division Bench has been assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has also uphold the said decision of the Division Bench vide judgment dated 25.02.2014 passed in the case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors. (supra).
16. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi further submits that at the time of first application dated 11.11.2003, the policy of the State Government was based upon the Page 25 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Government Resolution dated 15.01.1998 issued by the Revenue Department and at that relevant point of time, while evaluating the premium on an application preferred by the petitioners, the District Valuation Land Committee was governed by the aforesaid GR dated 15.01.1998. He further submits that thereafter the proposal was forwarded by the concerned revenue authority on 22.03.2004 to the State Government for its approval since the amount of the premium was exceeding Rs. 50 Lacs. However, during the pendency of the said proposal, the Revenue Department issued another GR dated 22.11.2004, which was also made applicable to the pending applications. He has read the said GR, which is appended along with the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.1.
17. Learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi further submits that since the decision is not taken by the State Level Committee, the petitioners have preferred a petition being Special Civil Application No. 4869 of 2006 before this Court and pursuant to the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2006 and taking into consideration the policy of the State Government dated 22.11.2004, the Revenue Department, vide communication dated 26.07.2006, has directed the office of the respondent no. 2 to decide the issue afresh in terms of the new policy of the State Government. However, the said communication dated 26.07.2006 came to be challenged by the petitioners Page 26 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined by preferring a Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No. 22164 of 2006. He further submits that during the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the State Government through Revenue Department issued another GR dated 04.07.2008, whereby the method for determining the amount of premium has substantially been changed. He further submits that the aforesaid G.R. dated 04.07.2008 along with the provision of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act came to be challenged before the Division Bench of this Court and the aforesaid petition preferred by the petitioner is of similar in nature, it has been tagged along with the group of matters challenging the validity of the GR. He further submits that the Division Bench of the High Court had, vide CAV judgment and order dated 03.05.2011, upheld the validity of the GR and the provision of the Tenancy Act. Thus, the petition preferred by the petitioners also came to be disposed of by the aforesaid common judgment dated 03.05.2011. He further submits that the aforesaid judgment dated 03.05.2011 of the Division Bench of this Court came to be challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by preferring Civil Appeal No. 4121 of 2012 & other allied matters. However, the said appeal also came to be dismissed.
18. So far as the contention of inaction on the part of the respondent authorities is concerned, learned AGP has submitted that the concerned revenue Page 27 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined authority has already submitted the proposal to the Revenue Department of the State for its approval and before any decision is taken by the said authority, the petitioners have preferred the petition before this Court and during the pendency of the said petition, the State Government had passed another GR and therefore pursuant to the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and based upon the said GR, the Revenue Department directed the concerned revenue authority to carry out the exercise of revaluation of the subject land since the period of more than two years has been passed by from the date of earlier proposal. Therefore, the petitioners have preferred another petition before this Court challenging the said communication and during the pendency of the said petition, the Revenue Department has passed another G.R. dated 04.07.2008 and said GR and provisin of Section 43 have been challenged before this Court by various petitioners and since the said petition preferred by the petitioners is also on the same line, it has been clubbed with those petitions. The said group of petitions as well as appeals including the petition of the petitioners have been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court has been assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore on account of pendency of the issue, the respondents could not be in a position to take any decision on the application filed by the Page 28 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined petitioners and therefore it cannot be said that the respondents have sat tight over the issue and there is inaction on the part of the revenue authorities for not taking any decision on the application of the petitioners. He further submits that during the pendency of the present petition, petitioners have also filed one application for determination of the amount of premium and direction against the respondent authorities to accept the said amount of premium. The said application has been allowed by this Court and petitioners were directed to pay the amount of premium of Rs.6,91,20,960/- and the concerned revenue authorities were directed to pass an order to that effect. He submits that therefore the concerned Collector has already taken a decision on 22.01.2020 accepting the premium of Rs.6,91,20,960/- from the petitioners and therefore pendency of the petition is merely an empty formality. He, therefore, submits that petition is required to be dismissed.
19. In rebuttal, learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioners submits that since the jantri rate of the subject land has been changed frequently during the pendency of this petition, the petitioners have, out of an abundance of caution, preferred one application before this Court for determination of the amount of premium and direction against the respondents to accept the amount of premium so fixed by the Court.
Page 29 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined The said application has been allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, whereby, petitioners were directed to deposit an amount of Rs.6,91,20,960/- by assessing the value of the subject land as Rs.40,262/-per sq. mtrs. He submits that the said order is passed on account of an interim arrangement by specifically observing that the said order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties which they may raise during the course of hearing of this petition. Thus, the said order is passed as an interim arrangement and if the concerned revenue authorities have taken a decision based upon that interim order, it cannot be said that since the concerned revenue authorities have already taken a decision, the pendency of this petition is an empty formality. He further submits that it is the specific case of the petitioners that since the year 2002-2003 till date, the concerned revenue authorities have either not taken any decision over the application preferred by the petitioners or communicated the said decision to the petitioners and therefore the amount of the subject land is required to be fixed either at Rs.2000/- i.e. the price of the land decided on 18.09.2003 or at the most it can be fixed at Rs.14,500/- as decided on 29.03.2007. He submits that excess amount of premium may be refunded to the petitioners.
Page 30 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
20. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for both the parties and having considered the materials placed on record, it appears that the petitioners were holding the subject land, which is of restricted tenure under the provisions of Section 43 of the Act. Thus, the subject land was of 'new tenure' and therefore, the petitioners have made an application dated 7th October, 2002 to the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Pranth, for conversion of the land in question from 'new tenure' to 'old tenure'. It also transpires from the record that by way of resolution No.6, it was unanimously decided to charge premium at the rate of Rs.2,000/- for some portion of subject land and at the rate of Rs.2,500/- for the remaining part of the subject land. The petitioners came to know about the said fact only when they obtained the relevant papers under the Right to Information Act. It also transpires from the record that the Collector informed the Deputy Secretary of the Revenue Department that since the market value of the subject land is more than Rs.50 lacs, the valuation of the subject land is required to be fixed by the State Level Valuation Committee. Therefore, the decision taken by the District Valuation Committee has been referred to the Secretary, Revenue Department for approval. Thereafter, the Revenue Department sought certain information qua the market value of the subject land along with the map as per the guidelines issued by the Chief Town Planner and also to give Page 31 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined information as to whether the Town Planner has made valuation of the land in question or not. Thereafter, the Chief Town Planner forwarded the Valuation Report to the Revenue Department, which crystallizes the position of fact that the Chief Town Planner had also valued the land in question at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per sq.mtr. as on 18.09.2003. I have also perused the contents of the said report, which is annexed with the memo of the petition. It also transpires from the record that on account of inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioners have preferred one petition being Special Civil Application No. 4869 of 2006 before this Court, wherein, the Court passed the following order:
"What is prayed for in the present special civil application is for directing the respondents to take an appropriate decision to determine the amount of premium for conversion of land in question from new tenure to old tenure as early as possible. Shri Dipen Desai, learned AGP has submitted that the appropriate authority has already taken an appropriate decision, however, the same is pending before the State Government for its approval. Under the circumstances, the respondent No.2 is directed to take an appropriate decision and determine the amount of premium for the land in question in accordance with law and on merits as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court and shall also communicate the ultimate outcome of the same to the petitioners.
Page 32 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined With aforesaid observations and direction, the present special civil
application is disposed of accordingly.
Notice is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
21. Thus, the aforesaid order clearly crystallizes the fact that as per the submission made by learned AGP, an appropriate authority has already taken an appropriate decision, however, the same was pending before the State Government for its approval and considering the said submission of the learned AGP, the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the concerned respondent authority to take an appropriate decision and determine the amount of premium for the subject land within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Thus, it clearly transpires that even though the decision is taken by the Collector, Surat on 20/22.03.2004 and sent for its approval by the State Level Committee, the said decision has not been approved by the said Committee and therefore on account of the said inaction on the part of the concerned revenue authority, petitioners were constrained to file the aforesaid petition. However, instead of taking a decision in compliance of the aforesaid order, once again the issue has been remanded by the Revenue Department to the concerned revenue authority for carrying out the exercise of revaluation of the subject land vide communication dated 26.07.2006. It transpires from the record that Page 33 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by the Revenue Department, the office of the concerned revenue authority has once again sent a proposal on 03.05.2007 to the Revenue Department after making the revaluation of the subject land at Rs.14,500/- per sq. mtrs. During the interregnum period, the petitioners have preferred a petition assailing the aforesaid communication dated 26.07.2006 issued by the Revenue Department. However, during the pendency of the said petition, the State Government, Revenue Department had also issued one GR dated 04.07.2008. Therefore, number of persons have assailed the said GR dated 04.07.2008 as well as provision of Section 43 of the Act by way of preferring various petitions before this Court. Accordingly, the petition preferred by the petitioner also came to be tagged along with those petitions since the petition filed by the petitionrs is also on the same line and the Division Bench of this Court has, vide common CAV judgment dated 03.05.2011, dismissed all those petitions and Letters Patent Appeals upholding the validity of the aforesaid GR dated 04.07.2008. Being aggrieved by the said decision, some persons have assailed the said decision before the Hon'ble Apex Court by preferring Civil Appeal No.4123 of 2012 and allied matters. The said appeals also came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 25.02.2014, inter alia, holding as under:
Page 34 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined "[23] As far as the levy of the 80 per cent of the amount is concerned, it was submitted that it was unconscionable, and it would mean expropriation, and will be hit by Article 300A of the Constitution. Once we see the scheme of these provisions, in our view, no such submission can be entertained. In any case Mr. Nariman has pointed out that after the impugned judgment, the State Government has reduced the levy to 40 per cent which is obviously quite reasonable.
[24] The last point which requires consideration is with respect to the period for considering the application, and granting the sanction. There is some merit in the submission of the appellants in this behalf. Such application cannot be kept pending indefinitely, and therefore we would expect the Collector to decide such applications as far as possible within 90 days from the receipt of the application, on the lines of the judgment of this Court in Patel Raghav Natha. In the event the application is not being decided within 90 days, we expect the Collector to record the reasons why the decision is getting belated.
[25] For the reasons stated above we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment rendered by the Division Bench, approving the decisions rendered by the Single Judges in the Writ Petitions. All appeals are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs."
22. Thus, from the aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, while upholding the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, wherein, the Division Bench has held that the crucial date for determination of the premium is the date on which the Page 35 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Collector grants such permission and not the date when the petitioners have made an application, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that the Collector is expected to decide such application as far as possible within 90 days from the receipt of the application, on the lines of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Patel Raghav Natha and such application cannot be kept pending indefinitely.
However, in the instant case, it is an admitted position of fact that the office of the Collector had sent the proposal twice to the Revenue Department for its approval firstly on 20/22.03.2004 and secondly on 03.05.2007. However, the Revenue Department has sat tight over the issue and not taken any decision over the said proposals, despite the specific directions issued by this Court to take a decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order dated 25.04.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 4869 of 2006. It is pertinent to note that the first proposal was sent by the office of the Collector on 20/22.03.2004 and till the filing of the petition in the year 2006, the Revenue Department had not decided the said proposal for almost more than 2 years. Thereafter, even after passing of the aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 25.02.2014, the respondents have not taken any decision under the pretext of pendency of the matter before this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court.
Page 36 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
23. It is also pertinent to note that during the pendency of this petition as the jantri rate of the subject land has been changed frequently, the petitioners have, as an abundant caution, preferred one application being Civil Application No.12057 of 2017 before this Court for determination of the amount of premium. The said application has been allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.09.2017, whereby, petitioners were directed to deposit an amount of Rs.6,91,20,960/- by assessing the value of the subject land as Rs.40,262/-per sq. mtrs. The said order reads as under:
"1 By this Civil Application, the applicants - original petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
"9 a) to direct the Collector to accept the amount of premium at the current rate of Jantri and to convert the land bearing Block No.95 (Old Revenue Survey No.77+7/2) and Final Plot No.114 of village Althan, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat from new tenure to old tenure within a period of one month without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the outcome of the petition;
b) Alternatively, direct the opponents to accept the amount of premium at the current rate of Jantri and to convert the land bearing Block No.95 (Old Revenue Survey No.77+7/2) and Final Plot No.114 of village Althan, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat from new tenure to old tenure on the basis of the Page 37 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined application dated 07.10.2002 unconditionally and be further pleased to direct that the process of such decision may be expedited and completed within a period of one month.
c) To pass such other and further reliefs as Your Lordships may deem just, fit and expedient be granted in favour of the applicants."
2 The State respondents have taken almost thirteen years to yet take a decision as regards the amount of premium to be paid by the applicants for the purpose of conversion of the restricted land to old tenure land. The applicants are the joint owners of an ancestral property being an agricultural land bearing block No.95 admeasuring 11,432 sq. mtrs. situated at village: Althan, which has been reconstituted as the three separate final plots i.e. (i) Final Plot No.114 admeasuring 4272 sq. mtrs., (ii) Final Plots Nos.35A and 35B admeasuring 962 sq. mtrs. and 1133 sq. mtrs. respectively.
3 The issue involved in the main petition is qua the Final Plot No.114 admeasuring 4272 sq. mtrs. It appears that the applicants derived the land in question in the tenancy proceedings, and therefore, the restrictions of Section 43 under the Tenancy Act are applicable to the land in question.
4 The record reveals that the applicants preferred an application dated 7th October 2002 addressed to the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant for conversion of the land from 'new tenure' to 'old tenure'. The application filed in the year 2002 was taken into consideration, and the District Valuation Committee, by way of the resolution No.6, fixed the price at Rs.2,000/ per sq. mtr. for part of the land of Final Plot No.114, and at the rate of Rs.2,500/ Page 38 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined per sq. mtr. for the remaining part of the land. By letter dated 20th March 2004, the Collector, Surat informed the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department that the market value of the land in question is of Rs.85,44,000/, and the amount of premium would come to Rs.59,80,800/ (70% of the market value), and as the market value of the land exceeds Rs.50 Lac, the value of the land in question would be determined by the State Level Valuation Committee.
5 Without going into any further details in this regard, it appears that no decision was taken at the end of the State Government in this regard. I am given to understand that as no decision could be taken within a period of two years as regards the proposal forwarded to the State Government, the proposal was treated to have lapsed. With the lapsing of the proposal, everything had to be undertaken a fresh. It appears that the very same exercise was undertaken, and in the year 2007, the value of the land was assessed at Rs.14,500/ per sq. mtr., and the amount of premium was determined at Rs.4,95,55,200/. Once again, the same exercise was undertaken, and I am given to understand that no decision was taken by the State Government in this regard. At both the stages, the applicants were ready and willing to deposit the amount, as determined.
6 After a period of thirteen years, the Government has now assessed the value of the property at Rs.40,262/ per sq. mtr., and according to the prevailing policy, the applicants will have to deposit 40% of the total amount of the value of the property. If we calculate the value of the property at the rate of Rs.40,262/ per sq. mtr., then the value of the land in question i.e. the Final Plot No.114 admeasuring 4272 sq. mtrs. is assessed at Rs.17,28,02,400/. The 40% of this amount would come to around Rs.6,91,20,960/ (in words: Rupees Page 39 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Six Crore Ninety One Lac Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty only).
7 The applicants are ready and willing to deposit the amount of Rs.6,91,20,960/ as on date. But, it appears that the State Government is yet to take any final decision in this regard. The apprehension expressed by the applicants is that within the next few months, the Jantri rate may be revised again, and if it so happens, then the value of the property will be assessed accordingly, and the amount of premium will be much higher than the amount due and payable today.
8 I fail to understand why no final and appropriate decision is taken past thirteen years. Ms. Thakore, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the State respondent tried her best to explain me as to what happened during the interregnum period of thirteen years. The learned A.G.P. brought to my notice the filing of the two petitions in between by the applicants and the disposal of the same. I shall consider the explanation which is sought to be offered by the State Government at the time of hearing of the main matter.
9 I am inclined to pass some interim order today which would protect the interest of both i.e. the applicants as well as the State. I direct the applicants to deposit the amount of Rs.6,91,20,960/ with the office of the Collector, Surat at the earliest. The authority concerned shall accept the amount and pass an appropriate order as regards conversion of the land from 'new tenure' to 'old tenure'. This deposit of the amount by the applicants shall be without prejudice to their rights and contentions that they may raise in the course of the hearing of the main matter. This would also apply qua the State Government. It is understood that the authority concerned shall accept the Page 40 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined same subject to their rights and contentions.
10 It is brought to my notice by Mr. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants that in the past, an identical order was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Madhu Developers vs. State of Gujarat and others [Special Civil Application No.18936 of 2015 decided on 10th December 2015]. The order reads as under:
"1. The prayer made in the petition is to direct the Collector to grant revised N.A. permission by charging necessary conversion charges as per the provisions of Gujarat Revenue Code. It appears that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal passed order dated 31/08/2015 setting aside the order dated 12/02/2015 passed by the Deputy Collector and remanded the matter to pass amended order by holding that since the land was already converted for N.A. purpose, the petitioner is required to pay premium only for commercial use of the land.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though such order of the Tribunal has become final and that the petitioner is not required to pay any other premium under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act, the Collector still insisted for payment of such premium for the purpose of conversion of the land under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act, and on such insistence, the application of the petitioner for revised N.A. permission is not being considered.
3. This Court on 6.11.2015 passed following order:
"Notice returnable on 23rd November,2015. Learned AGP Ms. Thakore appearing for respondent No.1 on advance copy waives service of notice for respondent No.1. Direct Service for rest of the respondents Page 41 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined is permitted.
Learned Advocate Mr. Shah states that the petitioners are agreeable to deposit the amount of premium as stated in the impugned order dated 12.2.2015 without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners and subject to the rights and contentions of the parties. Therefore, on returnable date, respondent No.2 Collector may state on affidavit as to whether the amount from the petitioner as required by the impugned order could be accepted for considering the application of the petitioner for revised permission."
4. The Collector then filed affidavit inter alia stating that the State would be entitled to get premium as on the date of the decision, that by filing the undertaking by the petitioner to deposit of amount of premium, the petitioner wants to secure advance rates and wants to avoid deposit of the premium as on the date of actual decision. Pending the petition, the petitioner has now filed application being Civil Application No. 13023 of 2015, seeking permission to deposit the premium amount as demanded by the Collector for grant of N.A. permission for land in question without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties and subject to final outcome of the proceedings of the main petition.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that since the order of the Tribunal is not challenged, the Collector was required to grant the revised N.A. permission by accepting the amount of N.A. premium for commercial use. Mr. Shah submitted that the petitioner however in order to avoid any delay in developing the land wants to deposit the premium amount even under Section 43 of Page 42 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined the Tenancy Act so that the application for revised N.A. permission could be granted and the petitioner could develop the land.
6. Learned AGP Mr. Patel on the other hand submitted that till the question involved in the matter as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay premium on conversion under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act is decided, the petitioner in advance could not be permitted to pay the amount as the relevant date for such premium will be date of decision, and therefore by permitting the petitioner to deposit such amount in advance, the interest of the State to collect appropriate revenue shall be affected.
7. The Court having heard learned advocates for the parties finds that the petitioner has already succeeded before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. 26 of 2015, which was filed against the order dated 12/02/2015 passed by the Deputy Collector, whereunder the application of the petitioner for N.A. permission for commercial use was disposed of on the ground that the petitioner did not give consent to deposit the amount of premium under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act as per the prevailing jantri.
8. The Collector, however, is of the view that the petitioner would still be required to pay premium under Section 43 over and above the premium paid for change of use under Section 65, as the permission which was granted under Section 65 lapsed because of noncompliance of the condition of the order passed under section 65. However, the Court finds that as per the communication dated 12/02/2015 of the Deputy Collector, if the petitioner had given undertaking, his application for change of use could be considered. The petitioner has then succeeded Page 43 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined before the Tribunal. In such facts situation, now when the petitioner is ready to deposit such premium subject to his rights and contentions in the main petition, the Court finds that there should not be any objection on the part of the State Authority.
9. In view of the above, Rule returnable on 27/06/2016. Learned AGP Mr. Patel waives service of Rule for the respondents.
10. By way of interim relief, it is directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to deposit the amount of premium as required under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. However, such deposit of the premium by the petitioner shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the final outcome of the main petition.
11. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah states that the petitioner shall deposit of such premium within 15 days from today with the office of Collector. On such deposit made by the petitioner, the collector shall take further action on the application preferred by the petitioner for revised N.A. permission.
12. It is directed if the petitioner succeeds in the present petition, the petitioner shall be entitled to refund of amount, deposited by the petitioner in pursuace of the present order with interest.
Order in Civil Application No. 13023 of 2015.
Since the Court passed an interim order in main petition, no order is required on the civil application. Hence, it is disposed of."
11 It further appears that the order passed by the learned Single Judge referred to above was carried in appeal by the State by filing the Page 44 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Letters Patent Appeal No.137 of 2016. With some modifications, the order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed. I may quote the order passed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No.137 of 2016 dated 15th March 2016 as under:
"1. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the respondent in Special Civil Application no.18936 of 2015 aggrieved by order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.12.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No.18936 of 2015.
2. As the matter is pending before the learned Single Judge, it is not necessary at this stage to give the detailed facts. In the petition being Special Civil Application No.18936 of 2015, the respondent-petitioner prayed for direction to the Collector to grant revised NA (nonagricultural) permission by charging necessary conversion charges as per the provisions of Gujarat Revenue Code. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has passed an order dated 31.8.2015 by setting aside an order dated 12.2.2015 passed by Deputy Collector and remanded the matter by holding that land was already converted for nonagricultural purpose and the respondent is required to pay the premium only for commercial use of the land. It is the case of the respondent that the order has become final and in view of the order of the Tribunal, the respondent is not required to pay any other premium as contemplated under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. Learned Single Judge in the order dated 10.12.2015 has passed the following order:
"10. By way of interim relief, it is directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to deposit the amount of premium as required under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. However, such deposit of the Page 45 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined premium by the petitioner shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the final outcome of the main petition.
11. Learned Advocate Mr.Shah states that the petitioner shall deposit of such premium within 15 days from today with the office of Collector. On such deposit made by the petitioner, the collector shall take further action on the application preferred by the petitioner for revised N.A. permission.
12. It is directed if the petitioner succeeds in the present petition, the petitioner shall be entitled to refund of amount, deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the present order with interest."
3. Heard learned Government Pleader Ms.Shah for the appellant and learned counsel Mr.Mehul Sharad Shah for the respondent. It is revealed that while the Special Civil Application is pending, the learned Single Judge has permitted the respondent-petitioner to deposit the premium without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, however, further observed that in the event of success by the respondent-petitioner, he is entitled for refund of the deposit made by him towards the premium amount along with interest. Primarily, the order to the extent of observing that the respondent is entitled to refund of premium amount with interest is under challenge in this appeal. But the learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly conceded that in the event of success in the main petition, he will not claim any interest on the premium amount.
4. In view of the statement made by learned Page 46 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined counsel for respondent, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed partly by setting aside the direction to the extent of return of the premium amount with interest but in all other respects the order is confirmed. At the same time, we request the learned Single Judge to dispose off the Special Civil Application as expeditiously as possible. It is open for the petitioner to move an application before the learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal of the petition. It is made clear that it is open for the respondent to raise all contentions in Special Civil Application. Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.
5. Civil Application No.1859 of 2016 is disposed off in view of the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.137 of 2016."
12 Let this exercise be undertaken at the earliest and needful be done in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
13 With the above, this Civil Application is disposed of. Direct service is permitted."
24. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid interim order came to be passed on 21.09.2017, whereby, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties, the petitioners were directed to deposit an amount of Rs.6,91,20,960/- with the office of the Collector, Surat at the earliest and concerned revenue authorities were directed to accept the said amount and pass an appropriate order as regards conversion of the land Page 47 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined from new tenure to old tenure. Despite the specific direction issued to the concerned revenue authorities to undertake the aforesaid exercise at the earliest and within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the concerned revenue authorities have not accepted the amount of premium and passed any order. Therefore, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order on 16.10.2018:
"1. xxx xxx xxx
2. Above such prayers are made in the context of the application made by the petitioners before the concerned authority seeking conversion of the land in question from new tenure to old tenure.
3. The petition was filed in the year 2015 and pending the petition, the petitioners moved one Civil Application No.12057 of 2017 for following reliefs:-
"a) to direct the Collector to accept the amount of premium at the current rate of Jantri and to convert the land bearing Block No.95 (Old Revenue Survey No.77+7/2) and Final Plot No.114 of village Althan, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat from new tenure to old tenure within a period of one month without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the outcome of the petition;
b) Alternatively, direct the opponents to accept the amount of premium at the current rate of Jantri and to convert the land bearing Block No.95 (Old Revenue Survey Page 48 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined No.77+7/2) and Final Plot No.114 of village Althan, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat from new tenure to old tenure on the basis of the application dated 07.10.2002 unconditionally and be further pleased to direct that the process of such decision may be expedited and completed within a period of one month.
c) To pass such other and further reliefs as Your Lordships may deem just, fit and expedient be granted in favour of the applicants."
4. The civil application was disposed of vide order dated 21.9.2017 by issuing directions as contained in para 9 with further order as contained in para 12 thereof. Para 9 and 12 of the said order read as under:-
9. I am inclined to pass some interim order today which would protect the interest of both i.e. the applicants as well as the State. I direct the applicants to deposit the amount of Rs.6,91,20,960/ with the office of the Collector, Surat at the earliest. The authority concerned shall accept the amount and pass an appropriate order as regards conversion of the land from 'new tenure' to 'old tenure'. This deposit of the amount by the applicants shall be without prejudice to their rights and contentions that they may raise in the course of the hearing of the main matter. This would also apply qua the State Government. It is understood that the authority concerned shall accept the same subject to their rights and contentions.
12. Let this exercise be undertaken at the earliest and needful be done in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.Page 49 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
5. After the above order was made, the petitioner had made grievance that the directions issued by this Court in the above- referred Civil Application were not being complied with. At the earlier hearing of the petition, it was submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Thakore that under the said directions, the petitioners were required to deposit Rs.6,91,20,960/-, however the petitioners did not deposit the said amount and therefore, no further action pursuant to the directions issued by this Court could be taken. However, it was the submission of learned advocate Mr. Shah appearing for the petitioners that the office of the Collector was deliberately not accepting the above amount. But, then, as per the oral instructions from learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Thakore, the amount was accepted by the office of the Collector from the petitioners. After deposit of the above amount, the respondents were to take further steps as per the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 21.9.2017 passed in the above-referred Civil Application.
6. However, since no further action was being taken, Mr. Shah made serious grievance on non- compliance of the directions issued by this Court.
7. Before the last two dates of hearing, when the Court inquired from learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Thakore as to what steps were being taken to comply with the directions issued by this Court, she tendered copy of the letter dated 9.7.2018 addressed by the Section Officer, Revenue Department, Gujarat State to the petitioner No.2, wherein it is stated that land bearing Survey No.79, admeasuring 25503 Sq. Mtrs. was declared surplus and possession thereof was taken on 27.7.1990 and since such Page 50 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined possession was with the State Government till the ULC Act was repealed, in view of the Repeal Act, 1999, ownership of the land would be considered of the State Government, and therefore, request for issuing No Objection Certificate for the land of Survey No.79 Paiki admeasuring 25503 Sq. Mtrs. is not granted. However, learned advocate Mr. Shah instantly drew the attention of the Court to one order dated 24.4.2002 passed by the competent authority and Additional Collector, ULC, Surat, wherein the competent authority has observed that the order declaring the above land as surplus was set aside vide order dated 12.1.1999 in the Appeal No.18 of 1998 filed under Section 33 of the ULC Act by the landholder and all the subsequent proceedings were declared non est and the matter was remanded to decide it afresh and thereafter, since the ULC Act was repealed, all proceedings pending were automatically rendered ineffective. It is further stated that till 30.3.1999, i.e. the date of repeal of the ULC Act, since the above land did not remain as surplus land, the question of taking possession of the above land did not arise.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Thakore however submitted that since the decision was taken by the concerned ULC Committee not to issue No Objection Certificate, the application of the petitioner for conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure was rejected. The Court however asked learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Thakore whether when the ULC Committee took decision, the order dated 24.4.2002 of the competent authority was considered, she under the instructions of the officer present in the Court stated before the Court that when the decision was taken not to issue No Objection Certificate for the land in question, the order dated 24.4.2002 of the competent authority was not brought to the notice of the concerned committee. It is in such Page 51 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined context, the Court finds that the Collector should place the order dated 24.4.2002 of the competent authority before the concerned ULC Committee and invite fresh decision of the ULC Committee thereafter, the Collector should reconsider the application of the petitioner for conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure.
9. In view of the above, the Collector is directed to place the copy of order dated 24.4.2002 passed by the competent authority and Additional Collector, ULC, Surat in connection with the land bearing Survey No.79 Paiki admeasuring 25503 Sq. Mtrs. before the concerned ULC Committee for its fresh consideration and decision within a period of ONE WEEK from the date of receipt of this order and the concerned ULC Committee then shall take fresh decision after considering the above order of the competent authority within a period of TWO WEEKS thereafter and shall immediately communicate its fresh decision to the Collector. Such fresh decision shall be taken by the concerned ULC Committee irrespective of the decision taken for non-grant of No Objection Certificate for the above land as intimated to the petitioner No.2 vide communication dated 9.7.2018 by the Section Officer of the Revenue Department, Gujarat State. It is directed that on receipt of fresh decision from the concerned ULC Committee, the Collector shall reconsider the application of the petitioner for conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure and take appropriate decision thereon. Such decision shall be placed on record of the present petition before the next date of hearing.
S.O. to 4th December 2018.
Direct Service is permitted."
25. It is also pertinent to note that the aforesaid Page 52 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined order came to be passed on 16.10.2018, whereby, the Collector was directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner for conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure and take appropriate decision thereon and the said decision shall be placed before the next date of hearing and thereafter the matter is adjourned to 04.12.2018. However, on 04.12.2018 also, the respondents have not placed any decision on record. The aforesaid approach on the part of the respondents clearly shows and suggests that they have shown total disrespect to the directions issued by this Court by various orders; firstly the order passed on 25.04.2006, secondly the order dated 21.09.2017 and thirdly the aforesaid order dated 16.10.2018. Therefore, the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:
"1. Learned advocate Mr.Mehul Sharad Shah, has pointed out the order dated 16.10.2018, wherein and whereby this Court after passing a comprehensive order had directed the respondent authority to take appropriate decision and place the same on record before the next date of hearing i.e. on 04.12.2018.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Shah, has submitted that as on today, such decision is not placed on record of the petition.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader requests for some time.
4. In case, it is found that no such decision is taken, as directed by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2018, the reason for not taking such Page 53 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined decision shall be incorporated by way of an affidavit. If any decision is taken, the same shall also be produced before this Court.
5. It is clarified that if no decision is taken, this Court would be constrained to impose exemplary cost on the Officer, who is handling the file.
6. The matter is kept on 25.01.2023, at top of the Board.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader shall communicate the present order to the concerned Officer forthwith."
26. Thus, after the aforesaid order, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Surat filed further affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2, inter alia, stating that pursuant to the order dated 16.10.2018, the concerned respondent authority had passed an order for conversion of subject land from restricted tenure to old tenure. A copy of the order dated 22.01.2020 is appended along with the said affidavit. Thus, only after the aforesaid order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, inter alia, observing to impose exemplary cost on the officer, who is handling the file, for the first time, the copy of the order dated 22.01.2020 has been placed on record. Thus, the aforesaid undisputed facts show the adamancy on the part of the respondent authorities.
27. Thus, in view of the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of the case, so far as the contention Page 54 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined raised by learned AGP Mr.Trivedi for the respondents that on account of pendency of the petition before the Division Bench of this Court and thereafter before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondent authorities could not be in a position to take any decision over the application of the petitioners is concerned, the same would not be sustainable.
28. Another contention raised by learned AGP Mr. Trivedi for the respondents is that since the decision is taken by the Collector, Surat on 22.01.2020 in compliance of the directions issued by this Court and therefore pendency of the petition is merely an empty formality. However, it is pertinent to note that the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Application No.12057 of 2017 is an interim order and petitioners were directed to deposit an amount of Rs.6,91,20,960/- before the Collector, Surat subject to their rights and contentions that they may raise at the time of final hearing of this petition. Thus, based on that interim order, petitioners have deposited an amount of Rs.6,91,20,960/- with the Collector, Surat and therefore the said contention of the learned AGP is also not sustainable.
29. It is pertinent to note that the first proposal was sent by the office of the Collector to the Revenue Department on 20/22.03.2004 by assessing the Page 55 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined market value of the subject land at Rs.2000/-. However, as any decision is not taken by the Revenue Department on the said proposal for more than 2 years, the petitioners were constrained to file a petition before this Court, wherein, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order based upon the statement made by the learned AGP to the effect that 'an appropriate authority has already taken an appropriate decision, however, the same is pending before the State Government for its approval' and therefore the Court issued direction to the Revenue Department to take an appropriate decision and determine the amount of premium for the land in question within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. However, instead of taking any decision, as directed by this Court, the Revenue Department has once again directed the office of the Collector to carry out the exercise of revaluation of the market price of the subject land. It is also pertinent to note that thereafter also the office of the Collector had forwarded second proposal to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department on 03.05.2007 by assessing the market value of the subject land at Rs.14,500/-. However, the Revenue Department had also not taken any decision on the said second proposal. Thus, it transpires that though the Collector had taken decision twice and forwarded the proposal twice to the Revenue Department for its approval, the Revenue Department had not taken any Page 56 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined decision. Thus, it appears that all these exercises have been carried out by the concerned revenue authorities before coming into force the G.R. dated 04.07.2008 and the concerned revenue authority sat tight over the issue till the issuance of G.R. dated 04.07.2008.
30. As observed earlier, the office of the Collector had submitted the proposal twice to the Revenue Department since the market price of the subject land is more than 50 lakhs and therefore the decision is required to be approved by the State Level Valuation Committee. The first proposal was sent on 20/22.03.2004 and at that time the price of the subject land was assessed at Rs.2,000/- per sq. mtr. and secondly when the proposal was sent on 03.05.2007, at that relevant point of time, the price of the subject land was assessed at Rs.14,500/-. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors. (supra) would be squarely applicable in the instant case and as held in the said decision, the Collector is expected to take a decision within 90 days from the date of receipt of the application and therefore if the decision taken by the Collector at the time of second proposal is to be accepted, in that event, the petitioners are required to make the payment of premium at the rate of Rs.14,500/- per sq. mtr.
Page 57 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is partly allowed. The order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the Collector as well as Deputy Collector, Surat is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accept the amount of premium by considering the value of the subject land at the rate of Rs.14,500/- as decided unanimously on 29.03.2007 (a reference of which is given in the second proposal dated 03.05.2007 sent to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department by the office of the Collector, Surat) as per the policy of the State Government, prevalent as on 03.05.2007 and to convert the subject land from new tenure to old tenure on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioners. The differential amount of premium already deposited by the petitioner with the office of the Collector, Surat shall be refunded to the petitioners within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondent authorities shall carry out and conclude the aforesaid exercise within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) LAVKUMAR J JANI Page 58 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026