JUDGMENT :

VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Nishit P. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned AGP appearing for the respondents.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Pancholi, learned AGP waives service of rule for and on behalf of the respondent –State.

3. By way of the present petition, the petition herein prays for the following reliefs:

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 19.03.2025 (at ANNEXURE-I) and 23.01.2025 (at ANNEXURE-G), passed by the learned District Collector, Banaskantha and further be pleased to direct the learned District Collector to grant N.A. permission qua the land is question;

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned orders dated 19.03.2025 (at ANNEXURE-I) and 23.01.2025 (at ANNEXURE-G), passed by the learned District Collector, Banaskantha for grant of N.A. permission and further be pleased to direct the learned District Collector to reconsider the N.A permission application (at ANNEXURE-H) strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 65 of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879;

(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to determine the amount of premium payable for conversion of land in question into N.A. land and further be pleased to permit the petitioners to pay the same;

(D) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;”

4. By way of the present petition, the petitioners herein have challenged the impugned orders dated 23.01.2025 and 19.03.2025 seeking N.A. use permission with application for payment of premium land in question was consigned to “file” by respondent No. 2 – Collector. The petitioners’ application No. 60216202402970 was “filed” mainly on the ground that whether the order dated 12.11.2008 converting the land in question into old tenure by the Deputy Collector is taken into review or not. Subsequently, the petitioners made a detailed submission by Application No. 60216202500352. However, the subsequent order dated 19.03.2025 was consigned to the “file” on the same ground.

5. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate submits that in absence of any review, the order dated 12.11.2008 of converting the land into old tenure has attained finality.

6. Ms. Pancholi, learned AGP is not in a position to controvert the aforesaid factual position.

7. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate further relies on Government Resolution dated 08.04.2025, issued by the Revenue Department of the State Government, being Resolution No. NA.SHA.J/102025/566/J, and submits that the petitioner herein would approach the competent authority seeking the benefit of the aforesaid resolution afresh, that the same be decided in accordance with law.

8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the fact that the impugned order is passed merely on the ground that the order dated 12.11.2008, wherein the land was converted into old tenure is not taken into review or revision is such that the same is based on surmises and is contrary to the powers provided under Section 65 of the Code.

8.1. The petitioners made an application being No. 60216202500352 dated 24/30.01.2025 for converting the land in question into N.A. use which was again consigned to record vide order dated 19.03.2025 on the ground that reason given in earlier order is not satisfied.

8.2. Further, in light of the Resolution dated 08.04.2025 as referred to hereinabove, if the petitioners were to prefer a fresh application, the same shall also be considered while deciding the petitioners’ applications for NA permission under Section 65 of t