JUDGMENT :

Jayant Patel, J.

Mr. A.J. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is note present even in the second round. Hence, the matter stands dismissed for default.

Before the order is singed, Mr. Shital Patel, learned Counsel for Mr.A.J. Patel prays for recalling of the order and he states that he is ready to proceed with the matter.

2. Hence, restored. Mr. Shital, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned AGP are heard on merits.

3. The only question to be considered is that the Government would be entitled to recover premium from which date, whether from the date when the application was decided for lifting of the restriction or from the date when actual payment was made ? Another aspect is that after payment of premium being full price whether any restriction as new tenure would continue or not ?

4. In order to appreciate the controversy, some facts may be relevant and the same are that on 20.2.1964, the land in question was allotted by the Government to one Sindhi Madhu on payment of occupancy price. Sanad was issued and it was a new tenure land for agricultural purpose. Thereafter, the petitioners purchased the land from the said occupant vide Sale Deed dated 7.3.1981. As the land was new tenure land and without permission it was transferred in favour of the petitioners, attempt was made for conversion of the land as old tenure land. The same was considered by the Deputy Collector and vide order dated 14.1.1981 for payment of 60 times revenue assessment, the land was converted as old tenure, but for agricultural purpose only. It is the case of the petitioners that such payment was made. However, there was some audit objection that the difference of the price at which the land was allotted and the price at which the land was sold was not considered and 50% premium was not collected. Therefore, the petitioners were called upon to make the payment of balance amount of Rs.1,140/-, which was already paid by the petitioners on 20.10.1990. It appears that thereafter the petitioners applied for converting the land for nonagricultural purpose and the permission was initially granted vide order dated 2.7.1997 for one year and thereafter the same was further granted for one year to establish service station of gypsum storage. It appears that in the meantime, the petitioners also applied for lifting of the restriction for use of the land for non-agricultural purpose to the District Collector. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.2.1999, the State Government, after taking into consideration that the permission was granted for use of the land for non-agricultural purpose in July 1997 as a special case, the restriction was lifted for use of the land as agricultural land, but the same was on condition that the petitioner pays premium of 100% at prevailing market price of Rs.58.50 per sq. mtrs., or the valuation, as may be assessed by the District Valuation Committee. In the said order, the State Government also provided that the land would remain as restricted tenure or new tenure. Thereafter, vide communication dated 22.3.1999, the petitioner was called upon to make the payment of Rs.7,16,157/- at the rate of Rs.58.50/- per sq. mtrs., by the District Collector and as per the petitioner, the said amount was ultimately paid on 3.6.1999. However, subsequently, vide communication dated 14.6.1999, the petitioner was intimated by the District Collector that as per the Valuation Committee, the valuation in June 1999 was found to be of Rs. 17,13,880/-, but the petitioner has paid Rs. 7,16,167/- and, therefore, he was called upon to pay the amount of Rs. 9,97,723/- within 21 days. The petitioner thereafter made representation to the Secretary of the State Government as well as to the District Valuation Committee, but there was no decision. Hence, the petitioner preferred the present petition for the relief to quash and set aside the orders in question and for directing the respondents to grant N.A., on permanent basis w