Point of Law: The last contention regarding n on applicability of provisions of the Act to a land which is permitted to be converted into n on agricultural land by a competent Court also merits acceptance in light of settled legal position enunciated by the aforesaid two decisions of the Court. It is apparent that once the land is declared to be non agricultural one on the basis of N.A. Permission granted by t he competent authority the said land loses its characteristic of agricultural land and would not be a 'land' within the meaning of Sec.2(8) of the Act. If this be the position, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the land in question and the Deputy Collector could not have entertained the statutory power under the Act including entertaining of appeal under Sec. 74 of the Act.”

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. D.K.Puj for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Antani for respondent Nos.-1 to 3 and learned advocate Mr. Rishi Malik for respondent No.4 through video conference.

2. This Court [Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V.Anjaria] passed the following order on 26.04.2018:

“Heard learned advocate Mr.D.K.Puj for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Divyangna Jhala for the respondent State and its authorities.

2. Even in the second call, learned advocates for the private respondents have not chosen to appear. The matter was considered by the Court by going through the impugned orders and the facts involved with the assistance of learned advocates appearing for the parties.

It transpires that while issuing notice on 27.04.2017, this Court passed a detailed order highlighting the issues in the controversy. This order dated 27.04.2017 reads as under :

“It is submitted that the petitioner is the fourth subsequent purchaser of the land in question. Nonagricultural Use Permission was granted to the petitioner on 19.06.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained Development Permission from the Competent Authority on 18.09.2006 and started construction upon the land. It is submitted that in proceedings initiated by the heir of the second purchaser who had purchased the land in the year 1981, a challenge was made to the Nonagricultural Use Permission granted in the year 2006. It is further submitted that the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department (SSRD), by passing impugned order dated 23.12.2016, has rejected the revision application filed by respondent No.4. However, while doing so, the SSRD has issued directions of a general nature directing an inquiry to be made under the provisions of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, regarding the status of the land in question to find out whether any premium was payable for the land. While doing so, the SSRD has directed status quo to be maintained.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while exercising power under Section 211 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, the SSRD has no jurisdiction to issue directions under another enactment such as Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952, as has been done in the impugned order, which is contrary to the principles of law enunciated by this Court in several judgments.

It is further submitted that pursuant to the Development Permission and the Building Use Permission granted by the competent authorities in favour of the petitioner, which are still intact, construction has been put up. Due to the order of status quo, the petitioner is unable to proceed any further.

It is contended that once the land has been converted for Nonagricultural Use, it ceases to be agricultural land and the Tenancy Act would not apply to such land. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Adambhai Sulemanbhai Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2004(1) GLR 906, wherein it is held as below:

“24. The last contention regarding n on applicability of provisions of the Act to a land which is permitted to be converted into n on agricultural land by a competent Court also merits acceptance in light of settled legal position enunciated by the aforesaid two decisions of the Court. It is apparent that once the land is declared to be non agricultural one on the basis of N.A. Permission granted by t he competent authority the said land loses its characteristic of agricultural land and would not be a 'land' within the meaning of Sec.2(8) of the Act. If this be the position, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the land in question and the Deputy Collector could not have entertained the statutory power under the Act including entertaining of appeal under Sec. 74 of the Act.”

3. The aforesaid reasons constitute a prima facie case. The petition is liable to be consi