IMPORTANT POINT
The finality of the Deputy Collector's order specifying that no provisions of the Tenancy Act would be applicable to the land in question and the authority's duty to seek opinion from subordinate officers or competent authorities when in doubt about the applicability of any law or the requirement of premium for land conversion.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order/communication dated 11.1.2023 passed by the District Collector, Kheda rejecting the petitioner's application for converting the land into non agricultural land on the ground that there is no clarity about whether the restrictions under Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 would be applicable in respect of land in question and whether any premium is required to be levied in respect of such conversion or not.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Darshan M. Varandani appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondent - State.

3. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the 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 respondent - State.

4. The brief facts as stated by learned advocate Mr. Varandani are as under:-

4.1 The dispute pertains to a land situated at village Lakhavad Party, Taluka Nadiad (City), District Kheda bearing Survey No.1171/B/2. According to the petitioner on 12.9.1960, the land bearing Survey No.1171/B was purchased by Jaydevbhai Ghanshyambhai Patel who happens to be the grandfather of the petitioner by way of a registered sale deed from original owner of the land Bai Ganga widow of Patel Nathabhai Kushalbhai vide sale deed No.1093/1060. In respect of the aforesaid sale from the pleadings it seems that some proceedings under the Tenancy Act had taken place and the Mamlatdar and ALT vide order dated 11.10.1963 in Tenancy Case No.425 of 1963 passed some order in favour of tenant Chaganbhai Sankarbhai.

4.2 As per the pleadings, being aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.1963, Tenancy Appeal No.110 of 1989 was preferred under Section 74 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act by Jaydevbhai Ghanshyambhai Patel who happens to be the grandfather of the petitioner and the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and Appeal vide order dated 7.12.1990 held that the order dated 11.10.1963 was contrary to the provisions of Tenancy Act and therefore, the same was set aside and for which the mutation entry No.12876 was mutated in favour of the grandfather of the petitioner on 29.1.1992.

4.3 Thereafter, according to the petitioner in the year 2010, father of the petitioner made an application under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 seeking N.A. permission and vide order dated 10.6.2010 the Collector, Kheda sought opinion from the Mamlatdar and ALT, Nadiad, upon inquiry as to whether there are any restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act or not.

4.4 At the relevant point time, in the year 2010, instead of giving the aforesaid opinion, the Mamlatdar and ALT initiated a proceedings vide Tenancy Case No.29 of 2010 and vide order dated 15.3.2011, the sale dated 12.9.1960 was regularized on the ground that the sale was between tenant and land owner and hence, there would be restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act.

4.5 The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and the matter was remanded back. According to the petitioner after two rounds of litigation, ultimately, when the matter was remanded back to the Mamlatdar and ALT to consider the aforesaid issue, ultimately, in Tenancy Case No.1 of 2016 vide order dated 30.8.2016, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Nadiad passed an order and held that it was a transfer between the tenant and landlord and hence, restrictions of Section 43 would apply.

4.6 The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms by way of Tenancy Revision Case No.20 of 2018 and ultimately, he succeeded as vide order dated 21.8.2018, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and Appeal, Kheda-Nadiad quashed and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Nadiad dated 30.8.2016 in Tenancy Case No.1 of 2016. According to the petitioner, the sa