Gujarat High Court
Rajeshkumar Amratbhai Kaidva (Patel) vs State Of Gujarat on 21 February, 2024
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19336 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=====================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may
be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a
substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
=====================================================
RAJESHKUMAR AMRATBHAI KAIDVA (PATEL) &
ORS.RAJESHKUMAR AMRATBHAI KAIDVA (PATEL)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARATSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
KAUSHAL H PATEL(9328) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 21/02/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have initially prayed for a direction to the District Page 1 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined Collector, Banaskantha to forthwith consider and grant the application of the petitioners for N.A. permission. Subsequently, by way of a draft amendment the aforesaid prayer was amended and petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.10.2022 passed by District Collector, Banaskantha rejecting the petitioners application for N. A. permission and hence, the petitioners have further prayed for a direction to the respondent No.2 to grant N.A. permission to the petitioners.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kaushal H. Patel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondent - State.
3. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. Hence, Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.
Page 2 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined
4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :-
4.1 The dispute pertains to the land situated at old revenue survey No.921+922/4 having new revenue survey No.970 admeasuring 1-
22-21 Hectare-RA-Sq.Mts. situated at Palanpur, Banaskantha. The aforesaid land was originally running in the name of one Amichand Nagar and at the relevant point of time, the land was an old tenure land.
4.2 There is another land being land at revenue survey No.1087 (new survey No.433) running in the joint name of Bechar Ramchadra and Hira Chela admeasuring 2-33 Acre-Guntha at Palanpur. The aforesaid land was a new tenure and restricted tenure land and there were restrictions of Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agriculturist Land Act, 1948 (for short "The Tenancy Act") over the said land. Out of two owners/allottes i.e. one of them Hira Page 3 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined Chela made an application under Rule 25C of the Tenancy Act to convert his share being 1 Acre 17 Guntha into old tenure as he wanted to sell his share of land in respect of revenue survey No.1087.
4.3 For that he wanted to exchange the land with the land of one Amichand Nagar, which is at revenue survey No.921/1/1 admeasuring 1 Acre 17 Gunthas, for the purpose of making a compact block with his other land at revenue Survey No.922/2/1. The Deputy Collector, Palanpur vide order dated 19.3.1979, considered the request for exchange of land made by Hira Chela and permitted such exchange between two lands bearing revenue survey No.1087 at Palanpur and survey No. 921/1/1 on a condition of payment of 60 times the value of the land.
4.4 In view of the aforesaid exchange, the land at revenue survey No.921/1/1 which was originally in the name of Amichand Nagar was of an old tenure land, was then shown in the name Page 4 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined of Hira Chela and the land at revenue survey No.1087 was shown in the name of Amichand Nagar. It is the case of the petitioners that since the application was made for exchange by Hira Chela, his land which was originally of old tenure land, the same would be subject to premium for N.A. use and as the predecessor in title of the land, Amichand Nagar though was a party to exchange of the land, since the application was not made by him, his land would retain the status of old tenure land.
4.5 The present petitioner has purchased the land in question by way of a registered sale deed dated 12.11.2020 from legal heirs of Hira Chela and Jetha Chela and thereafter, preferred an application on 23.2.2021 under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 to the Collector, Banaskantha for converting the land in question for non agricultural purposes. However, the said application was withdrawn and thereafter, another application was made by the Page 5 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined petitioner for converting a part of his land into N.A. land vide application dated 10.5.2021 which was rejected by the Collector, Banaskantha vide communication dated 23.7.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for N.A. permission once again on 6.9.2021 and said application was rejected by the respondent No.2 Collector, Banaskantha by order dated 23.10.2021 on the ground that as per condition No.2 of the order dated 19.3.1979 passed by the Deputy Collector, the land cannot be converted into N.A. land unless the premium for such conversion is paid by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 23.10.2021 by preferring a Revision Application No.MVV/BKP/BNS/24/2021 before the learned Special Secretary (Appeal) Revenue Department, Ahmedabad and the learned Special Secretary (Appeal) vide order dated 10.5.2022 partly allowed the aforesaid revision application and quashed and set aside the order dated 23.10.2021 passed by the Collector, Banaskantha and remanded the matter back to the Page 6 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined Collector, Banaskantha. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 gave personal hearing to the petitioner on 20.6.2022. However, thereafter as no decision was taken on the petitioners application for N.A., the petitioners preferred present petition initially with a direction to the Collector to decide the aforesaid application for N.A. but during pendency of this petition, as the Collector, Banaskantha rejected petitioners application vide order dated 29.10.2022, the petition was amended and petitioner challenged the order dated 29.10.2022 as well.
4.6 While rejecting petitioner's application for N. A. permission, the Collector, Banaskantha, considered the fact that this is a case of exchange and as per condition No.2 of the order dated 19.3.1979 whereby exchange had taken place, the land was a restricted tenure land as per Section 43 of the Tenancy Act, as per condition No.2 of the aforesaid order for converting the land into N.A. land, the Page 7 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined petitioner was required to pay the premium as well as obtain prior permission of the Collector. Further, Collector, Banaskantha also considered the relevant conditions of Government Resolution dated 16.3.1982 and more particularly paragraph No.1 of the said Government Resolution as well as paragraph No.13 of Government Resolution dated 18.12.2004 whereby it was held that a person is required to pay the premium for such conversion for N.A. purpose. The Collector in the impugned order dated 29.10.2022 has also observed that in view of the guidance from the State Government, the petitioners application was considered. Pursuant to petitioners application, the land in question was considered to be new tenure land and therefore, it was rejected on the ground that for converting the land into N.A. land, the petitioner is required to pay the premium. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have preferred present petition.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Patel appearing for Page 8 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined the petitioners submitted that the parties to the transfer including the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner has already paid the premium of 60 times the value of land, when the exchange of land was permitted vide order dated 19.3.1979 by the concerned Deputy Collector. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Patel submitted that condition No.2 in the order dated 19.3.1979 would be applicable only in respect of land bearing survey No.1087 and not to the present land, as the present land was already an old tenure land and therefore, the land in question purchased by the petitioners even on account of exchange would not loose his status of old tenure land, as the land in question is running as old tenure land even today without any restrictions as per the revenue record and therefore, the Collector was not justified in observing that for conversion of land into N. A. land, the petitioner is required to pay the premium as the land can be said to be new tenure Page 9 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined land.
5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Patel further submitted that the reliance placed by the Collector on Government Resolution dated 18.12.2004 as well as Government Resolution dated 16.3.1982 is misplaced for the reason that those Government Resolutions would be applicable only in respect of land which were originally new tenure land. In the instant case, the present land being an old tenure land, the applicability of aforesaid Government Resolution and relevant condition is absolutely irrelevant and therefore, the Collector has materially erred in rejecting the petitioners application by holding that such conversion cannot be permitted to convert the land into N.A. land unless the amount of premium is paid. 5.3 Learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Patel further submitted that even the Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department also has made positive observations while remanding the Page 10 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined matter back in favour of the petitioners as Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department has categorically observed in his order dated 10.5.2022 that restriction of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act would be applicable only to the revenue survey No.1087/1 admeasuring 1 acre 17 gunthas and not to the present land and according to learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Patel, even that land also at present is running as old tenure land and therefore, this vital aspect was not considered in its true prospective by the Collector, Banaskantha while rejecting petitioners application for N. A. permission.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondent - State vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the basic contention on which the petition is preferred and impugned order is challenged itself is misconceived.
6.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara submitted that this is a case Page 11 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined of exchange of land and therefore, once the exchange take place, the original status of land would not remain the same and such exchange would be governed by the condition whereby such exchange is permitted. None of the parties to the exchange have challenged the order dated 19.3.1979 whereby by way of condition No.2, it was specifically stated that in respect of land in question for converting the land into N.A., land prior permission from the Collector would be required and the parties are required to pay the premium.
6.2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara also submitted that the aforesaid condition right from the day on which the permission was granted for exchange would make it clear that for converting the land into N.A. land, a premium is required to be paid by the parties as determined by the Collector. 6.3 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara further submitted that by way Page 12 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined of various Government Resolutions i.e. Government Resolution dated 1.2.1971, Government Resolution dated 16.3.1982 and Government Resolution dated 18.12.2004, it is consistent stand taken by the Government that in respect of all the land which are subject matter of exchange at the time of conversion of land into N.A. land, such conversion would always be subject to payment of premium. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara read out the relevant conditions of Government Resolution dated 1.2.1971 and Government Resolution dated 18.12.2004 and submitted that not only the aforesaid Government Resolution provides for payment of premium before permitting such conversion of agricultural land into N.A. land, but the Collector has after due deliberation and after obtaining opinion from the Revenue Department, has rejected the petitioners application.
6.4 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Page 13 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined Mr. Nikunj Kanara further submitted that submission of learned advocate appearing for the petitioners that the other land is still shown as old tenure land as per the revenue record is absolutely irrelevant for the reason that payment of premium would be required only in case if the land is converted into N.A. land and therefore, whatever the status of land may be as per the revenue record as on today, such exchange of land would be governed by the Government Resolution dated 1.2.1971, 16.3.1982 and 18.12.2004 and therefore, considering the fact that those Government Resolutions are still holding the field, the Collector has rightly considered those Government Resolutions and has rejected the application of the petitioners. 6.5 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara further submitted that as and when the petitioner shows readiness to pay the amount of premium, he can once again apply for N.A. permission and if any such application upon Page 14 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined payment of premium is made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law in future. 6.6 By making the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara prayed for rejection/dismissal of the petition as no error has been committed by the Collector, Banaskantha while passing the order dated 29.10.2022 whereby the petitioners application for N.A. permission was rejected.
7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I found that there were two lands bearing survey No.1087 which was sought to be exchanged with land bearing survey No.921/1/1 and such exchange of land was permitted by the concerned Deputy Collector vide his order dated 19.3.1979. What is important in this entire transaction is that here though the transaction was of nature of transfer of the land but such transfer has not taken place by way of payment of any consideration. It is a Page 15 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined case of exchange of land for which permission was granted and therefore, none of the parties to such transfer can be termed as seller or purchaser or vendor or vendee and therefore, keeping this fact in mind, Government Resolutions in respect of N.A. permission in case of exchange of land are required to be considered.
7.1 Before considering the Government Resolution relied upon by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Nikunj Kanara, let me deal with the first submission of learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Patel appearing for the petitioners whereby he submitted that the present land being an old tenure land even after exchange, the same would retain the status of old tenure land and therefore, the condition No.2 of order dated 19.3.1979 would not be applicable to the present petitioners who happens to be successor in title in respect of Hira Chela who was a party to such exchange. In respect of aforesaid submission, to Page 16 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined consider the aforesaid submission what is required is to look into the order dated 19.3.1979. It is true that the order refers to an application made by Hira Chela on 19.7.1978 for exchange of land and such permission was granted vide order dated 19.3.1979 but at the same time, such permission was for exchange of the land so when the permission was granted for exchange it can be safely presumed that both the parties were agreeable to part with their present portion of the land in exchange of another portion of land offered by the another party. Exchange of land is nothing but a kind of contract between the parties whereby upon their mutual acceptance of offer, two portions of land were exchanged between the parties for which the permission was sought and therefore, any permission granted would bind both the parties as it is a permission in respect of two portions of land and not in respect of a land held by Hira Chela only. By way of permission dated 19.3.1979 even the land held by Amichand Nagar, Page 17 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined which is land bearing survey No. 921/1/1 was also covered and permitted to be exchanged with land bearing survey No.1087 and therefore, even if by virtue of aforesaid sale Hira Chela has become owner of the land owned by Amichand Nagar, it cannot be said that permission was granted only to Hira Chela and not to Amichand Nagar as the permission was in respect of two lands and therefore, condition No.2 would bind both the parties.
7.2 Condition No.2 of the order dated 19.3.1979 specifically states that in case if the land is being utilized for non agricultural purpose, in that case, a prior permission from the Collector would be required and thereafter, it would be subject to a premium which would be determined by the Collector. On perusal of the order dated 19.3.1979, I do not see anything to indicate that such conditions are restricted to a particular land i.e. either the land belonging to survey No.1087 or land belonging to survey Page 18 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined No.921/1/1 and therefore, both the lands even after exchange would be governed by the conditions imposed vide order dated 19.3.1979 and therefore, the submission that originally the land bearing survey No.1087 was an old tenure land and therefore, such condition would not be applicable in case of present petitioner or that all the Government Resolutions are in respect of land which are originally new tenure land and hence are not applicable in the facts of the case can not be accepted.
7.3 The aforesaid contention also can not be accepted and is required to be rejected outrightly for the reason that none of the parties to the exchange of land has ever challenged the order dated 19.3.1979 or any of the conditions imposed upon them. When the order dated 19.3.1979, permitting the exchange of land has become final and has remained un-challanged for all these years, it cannot be interpreted in the manner in which it is sought to interpreted Page 19 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined by learned advocate appearing for the petitioners.
7.4 Further on perusal of Government Resolution dated 1.2.1971, I found that in the preamble itself it is stated that for permitting the exchange of land, which are having restrictions of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act, the rate of premium payable would be as under
and thereafter, in the said Government Resolution by way of chart, rate of premium in respect of various categories are prescribed. The aforesaid Government Resolution and more particularly first paragraph of the Government Resolution specifically prescribes that the payment of premium is only toward permitting the exchange of land which are having restrictions of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and therefore, even if the premium paid by the parties at the relevant point of time, the said premium was towards permitting the exchange of the land and not towards converting the land into N.A. land. Page 20 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined Further, condition No.2 of the aforesaid Government Resolution also indicates that non agricultural use of land in question would be subject to payment of premium and thereafter in paragraph No.2, a detailed narration about how the amount of premium is required to be determined is stated but in nutshell the aforesaid Government Resolutions specifically provides for charging the premium in respect of any permission whereby land is sought to be converted into N.A. land. It is noteworthy to state that Government Resolution dated 1.2.1971 is specifically for determining the premium in respect of giving approval to exchange of land which are having restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act.
7.5 Thereafter, I have considered another Government Resolution dated 16.3.1982, which is in respect of new tenure land and as per the aforesaid Government Resolution and more particularly, Condition/Clause No.12 which is Page 21 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined relied upon by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondent - State, the same is in respect of exchange of new tenure land. The aforesaid condition specifically provides that owner of the new tenure land are permitted to exchange their land with a new tenure land but after the exchange, the land would be considered as new tenure land. In the instant case, right from the beginning, it is the case of the petitioner that land bearing survey No.1087 was a new tenure land and land bearing survey No.921/1/1 was an old tenure land but aforesaid Clause No.12 of the Government Resolution dated 16.3.1982 would make it clear that upon exchange of the land, both lands would be treated as new tenure land.
However, permission in respect of land in question for exchange of the land was granted prior to publication of the aforesaid Government Resolution and as the aforesaid Government Resolution is of the year 1982 wherein exchange took place in the year 1979, and therefore, the Page 22 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined condition No.12 of the aforesaid Government Resolution would not be applicable in the facts of the present case and therefore, the reliance on the aforesaid Government Resolution placed by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara cannot be accepted.
7.6 Similarly, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikuj Kanara also relied upon a Government Resolution dated 18.12.2004 which is also in respect of new tenure land and learned Assistant Government Pleader relied upon condition No.13 of the aforesaid Government Resolution which is also in respect of exchange of the new tenure land and which is almost identical to the condition No.12 of Government Resolution dated 16.3.1982. But as I observed in the foregoing paragraphs since both the Government Resolution dated 16.3.1982 and 18.12.2004 are the Government Resolutions which are after the permission to exchange the land was granted vide order dated 19.3.1979, the same Page 23 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined would not be applicable in the facts of the present case, as both these two Government Resolutions can't be made operational retrospectively.
7.7 Therefore, now entire case is required to be considered in respect of Government Resolution dated 1.2.1971 as well as the order dated 19.3.1979. As far as Government Resolution dated 1.2.1971 is concerned, as I have discussed earlier, the said Government Resolution is only in respect of permitting the exchange of land which are having restrictions of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and whatever premium is prescribed in the aforesaid Government Resolution is only for permitting the exchange of land having such restrictions. However, paragraph No.2 of the aforesaid Government Resolution also takes care of payment of premium in the event if the land is sought to be converted into N.A. land and therefore, even the Government Resolution dated 1.2.1971, which Page 24 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined would be applicable in the facts of the case does not exempt the land which is exchanged from payment of premium at the stage of converting the land into N.A. land.
7.8 Further as discussed in foregoing paragraph even the order dated 19.3.1979 also and more particularly condition No.2 specifically provides for prior permission of Collector and payment of premium as per the determination of Collector. The said order has also not been challenged by either side till today and therefore, if the order dated 19.3.1979 is considered along with Government Resolution dated 1.2.1971 though the reasoning granted by Collector, Banaskantha vide order dated 29.10.2022 for rejecting petitioners application for N.A. permission as far as it relates to the Government Resolution dated 18.12.2004 as well as Government Resolution dated 16.3.1982 are legally not tenable. The Collector, Banaskantha has rightly rejected the Page 25 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined application for N.A. permission preferred by the petitioner by taking into consideration condition No.2 of the order dated 19.3.1979. Further as stated in foregoing paragraph as Government Resolution dated 1.2.1971 also provides for payment of premium for converting the land into N.A. land, I do not see any reason that except for quashing the observation of the order of the Collector whereby the reliance has been placed on Government Resolution dated 16.3.1982 and Government Resolution dated 18.12.2004, rest of the order cannot not be said to be illegal. Resultantly, I don't see any reason to interfere with the final outcome of the impugned order. In view of that, the present petition is dismissed while quashing the observations in respect of applicability of Government Resolution dated 16.3.1982 and Government Resolution dated 18.12.2004. I am dismissing the petition though I am quashing a part of order for the reason that the prayer of the petitioner in the petition is to quash the Page 26 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19336/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024of undefined entire order and further to direct the respondent to grant N.A. permission to the petitioners but by way of preset judgment, I am confirming the impugned order except for the reasoning which are quashed as those GR are not applicable in the facts of the case. 7.9 However, it is clarified that as and when the petitioners shows willingness to pay the premium in accordance with law and after that any fresh application is made by the petitioner, the same may be considered in accordance with law by the concerned Collector without being influenced by earlier rejection or without being influenced by the present order.
8. The present petition is dismissed accordingly.
Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) Pallavi Page 27 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 08 21:06:09 IST 2024