The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Collector's decision to reject the N.A permission application based solely on a pending Special Civil Application was not justified, and relevant facts, such as the regularisation of similar transactions, must be considered.

JUDGMENT :

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 26.5.2021 passed by the District Collector in N.A application no.A. Jamin.2.Vashi.8641, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :

2.1 The dispute pertains to land situated at revenue survey no. 13P1 (New Survey No. 65) at village: Sanadar, Taluka :Deodar District Banaskantha which was running in the nameof one Rabari Vershibhai Khumabhai, who sold the land in question vide registered sale deed dated 7.5.1987 in favour of one Thakkar Mavjibhai Dalpatram and entry no. 249 was mutated and certified in the revenue record. Thereafter, said Mavjibhai sold the land in question to the father of the petitioners vide registered sale deed dated 2.4.1996 and revenue entry no. 324 dated 25.8.1997 came to be mutated. Thereafter, vide entry no. 790 the names of the petitioner and others were mutated and vide entry no. 798, other heirs including Maganji reliquished their rights in favour of the petitioners came to be mutated and same came to be certified.

2.2 Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for conversion of the land in question into N.A use on 6.11.2019. The said application came to be filed vide order dated 20.12.2019 on the ground that as per entry no. 392, the Special Civil Application No. 3179 of 2010 is filed against the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 30.6.2005.

2.3 Against that order the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 589 of 2020 wherein this Court directed the learned Collector to reconsider the case after hearing the petitioners.

2.4 The learned Collector without appreciating the facts of the case vide impugned order dated 26.5.2021 rejected the said N.A permission application on the ground that the Special Civil Application No. 3179 of 2010 is pending before this Court.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishit Gandhi for the petitioner and learned AGP Nikunj Kanara for the respondent State and perused the material placed on record and the decisions cited at Bar.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that same facts which are narrated in the memo of the petition and submitted that in the year 2000 Mamlatdar and ALT initiated suo motu proceedings against the Thakkar Mavjibhai Dalpatram and others of breach of Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act being, Ganot Case No. 104 and ultimately vide order dated 7.7.2000 held him to be non-agriculturist and ordered restoration of the land to the original owner. According to learned advocate Mr. Gandhi in the said order at internal page 9, it was clearly mentioned that the order will not apply to the lands which are already sold. According to him, the land in question was sold to the father of the petitioners three years prior to the initiation of the suo motu proceedings. Even the father of the petitioners were also not made party in the said proceedings.

4.1 He has also submitted that the said order of Mamlatdar was challenged by said Mavjibhai Dalpatram by preferring Ganot Appeal No. 15 of 2000 and the same came to be rejected by order dated 29.9.2001 which was challenged by Thakkar Mavjibhai before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal while preferring Revision Application No. 11 of 2002 which came to be allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 13.6.2005. Against that order, State of Gujarat has preferred Special Civil Application No. 3179 of 2010 which is pending. However, there is no any stay granted in favour of the State.

4.2 Mr. Gandhi has also submitted that the petitioners are also not made party in the said proceedings. The petitioners have moved application for being joined as party in the said proceedings and for necessary direction. He has also contended that identically situated person Patel Bhutaji Ranaji was granted N.A permission after accepting 10% premium as per the provisions o