ORDER :

VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.

1. Issue RULE, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present matter is taken-up for final hearing.

2. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned advocate with Ms. Pancham Jhala, learned advocate for Nanavati Associates, for the petitioners and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State authorities.

3. By way of the present petition, petitioners herein invoked Article-226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 - Collector, Rajkot (Annexure-P1), wherein, the petitioner’s application being no. 30909202500828 for conversion of the land for N.A. purpose came to be rejected, on the ground of pendency of cases.

4.1. Mr. Devnani, learned advocate submits that, by the impugned order the petitioners’ application seeking N.A. permission is consigned to ‘file’. Reliance is placed on the decision rendered in the case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2019 (4) GLR 2578 and submitted that, the petitioners herein would apply afresh seeking N.A. permission, the same be directed to be considered by the respondent no.2- Collector.

4.2. Reliance is placed on the order passed below Exh.1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 69 of 2014, which is dismissed for non- prosecution by order dated 11.03.2022 (pg.44) and the order passed by the learned Collector dated 26.07.2024 which arise out of the revenue proceedings (pg.51), wherein, the said order passed by the learned Collector is subject matter of challenge before the learned Special Secretary Revenue Department (for short ‘the SSRD’). It is submitted that, pendency of the revenue proceedings, as such would not absolve the respondent no.2 from deciding an application seeking N.A. permission. The aforesaid issue is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Tushar Ghelani (supra).

5. Mr. Parikh, learned AGP submits that, upon perusal of the record, the dispute appears to be a private dispute between the parties and in view thereof, the State would have no objection, if the petitioners’ application is reconsidered by the respondent no.2 herein, if the facts as stated in the present petition are brought to the notice of the respondent no.2 herein.

6. Mr. Devnani, learned advocate reiterates the contentions raised earlier and submits that the aforesaid facts would be brought to the notice of the respondent no.2 herein and that the respondent no.2 be directed to decide the petitioners’ application seeking N.A. permission within the statutory period, without being influenced by the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the respondent no.2.

POSITION OF LAW:

7.1. It is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down in LPA No. 1181 of 2025 and allied matters with CA (for condonation of delay) No. 4716 of 2025, wherein, the Hon’ble Division Bench reiterated the ratio laid down in Tusharbhai Ghelani. Relevant Para-14 to 18 and 25 of the said judgment, reads thus: “14. The impugned order dated 24.12.2024 records that the affidavit filed by the Collector, Vadodara was taken on record and the said affidavit though started with an apology, but the collector tried to justify the reasons for passing the orders impugned dated 28.10.2024 and 29.10.2024 for rejection of the NA application, more particularly, as regards the probability of the provisions of Agricultural Land Ceiling Act being violative on account of the Entry No. 780 dated 06.02.1985. It is noted by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned that the Collector, Vadodara has failed to appreciate the law laid down by this court in the case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani and Anr. Vs State of Gujarat and Ors. [2019 (4) GLR 2578], which was the basis of passing the judgement and order dated 31.01.2024 wherein the scope of inquiry under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 has been laid down.

15.