The court ruled that the Collector's rejection of NA permission applications based on historical grounds violated judicial directives, constituting contempt of court.

ORDER :

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.)

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Prateek Bhatia on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader Mr.G.H.Virk with learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Dharitri Pancholi and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.J.K.Shah on behalf of respondent- State.

2. By way of these petitions the petitioners challenge orders dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Collector, Vadodara more particularly whereby applications for grant of NA permission preferred by the present petitioners have been rejected.

3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr.Bhatia and learned AGP Mr. Shah, prima facie it would appear to this Court that order passed by the Collector, Vadodara reflects absolute highhanded attitude on part of the officers of the revenue department when it comes to complying with orders of this Court. To this Court it would appear that the order passed by the Collector being absolutely contemptuous, appropriate action requires to be taken against the officer concerned as well as the former Collector i.e. officer on whose opinion the Collector has relied upon.

4. To elaborate, it appears that the petitioners had originally preferred an application for grant of NA permission with regard to the land in question and whereas, vide orders dated 13.03.2023, the Collector Vadodara had rejected the said applications. It would appear that the said orders had been challenged by the petitioners by preferring writ petitions being Special Civil Applications No. 7053/2023, 7062/2023 and 7093/2023 before this Court. A learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.01.2024 in the above petitions, while quashing and setting aside the orders impugned therein had inter alia noted that the authorities concerned could not be permitted to refuse NA permission on aspects which had taken place more than 30 years back, more particularly when the land was not even held by the petitioners. Learned Co-ordinate Bench had also further observed that the transfers i.e the transfers by which the petitioners had acquired the land in question having been reflected in the revenue record having not been questioned, it would be too late in a day for the authorities concerned to question the aspect which had taken place more than 30 years back. It would also appear that the aspect in question was relatable to the Agricultural Land Ceiling (ALC) Act and whereas ultimately, learned Co-ordinate Bench vide the order referred to hereinabove had set aside the orders passed by the Collector, Vadodara and had remanded the matter back to the Collector, Vadodara and whereas, the Collector was directed to decide the application of the petitioners for NA afresh.

4.1. It would appear in this regard that in the remand case, the Collector, Vadodara had passed orders dated 28.10.2024 rejecting the applications inter alia on the very selfsame ground that there may be a possible breach of provision of Agricultural Land Ceiling Act.

4.2. It would appear in this regard that this Court having regard to the fact that the order passed by the Collector, Vadodara was in teeth of the order passed by learned Co- ordinate Bench dated 31.01.2024 referred to hereinabove, had directed the Collector, Vadodara to remain personally present and to explain by way of an affidavit as to why appropriate action shall not be taken against him more particularly when the application for grant of NA had been rejected upon the very selfsame objection which were not countenanced by learned Co-ordinate Bench. It would appear that in compliance of order dated 20.12.2024, the then Collector, Vadodara had remained present before this Court and had filed an affidavit and whereas ultimately, after hearing all the sides, this Court had passed order dated 24.12.2024. This Court vide the said decision, had inter alia observed that the Collector, Vadodara while passing order dated 28.10.2024 and 29.10.2024 (in the three petitions which were being considered by this Court), co