ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Satyam Chhaya for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondent No.1 – State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners challenge order dated 19.06.2024, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners for grant of NA permission, had been rejected on the ground that as per the report by the Deputy Collector, Dahod, inspite of the fact that the land in question was agricultural land, yet there is some plotting on the land and there is unauthorized pucca structure, which have been constructed on the land in question. Thus, the petitioners appear to have constructed on the land in question and thus, proceedings for breach of conditions are required to be undertaken.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Chhaya would draw the attention of this Court to the history of the litigation inasmuch as earlier the application preferred by the petitioners, had been rejected on the ground that the State is still contemplating as to whether an order passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is to be accepted or an appeal is to be preferred thereupon. Reference is made to orders passed by the Collector, Dahod, dated 31.03.2023 and 19.06.2023. Learned advocate Mr. Chhaya would draw the attention of this Court to an order of this Court dated 20.03.2024 in Special Civil Application No.12105 of 2023, whereby this Court while setting aside the order passed by the Collector, had permitted the petitioners to prefer an application afresh and whereas this Court had also permitted the Collector to grant conditional permission, if the State Government intends to challenge above referred order of learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Chhaya would submit that upon the petitioners preferring a fresh application without there being any basis whatsoever, the application has been rejected, more particularly holding that some construction is carried out on the land. Learned advocate would submit that as such, while there were some marking on the plot made by cement block etc., but the same could not by any stretch of imagination be termed as a construction. Learned advocate would submit that the respondents having termed such marking as construction, are clearly intending to harass the petitioners for having approached this Court in the earlier round. Thus, submitting learned advocate would request this Court to intervene.

5. As against the same, learned AGP Mr. Kanara would draw attention of this Court to the original file, more particularly the Panchnama prepared by the Deputy Collector, Dahod, of the land in question along with the photographs, whereby it could be seen that there might be a case of possible plotting of the land by putting cement block at the size of approximately 1 ft. and there also appears to be some kind of gutter connection, which is attempted to be constructed.

6. To this Court, having read the panchnama and having perused the photographs, it would appear that while some demarcations have been done, but the same by no stretch of imagination, could be termed as construction, to invite any action for breach of conditions. While this Court would have been inclined to consider the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Chhaya that the impugned order is passed only to harass the present petitioners, since the petitioners had approached this Court, yet considering the submissions made by the learned AGP that if a fresh application is made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law, without going into the aspect, which is weighed with the Collector vide order dated 19.06.2024, this Court does not intend to take up the issue any further view.

7. Having regard to the observations as hereinabove, the following directions to this Court, would meet with the ends of justice:

(a) The order dated 19.06.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.

(b) The petitioners are at liberty to file an application afresh for grant of NA permission under Section 65 of the Land Revenue