A. N. DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE order passed by the Deputy Collector at Vadodara (respondent no. 2 herein) on 18th July 1996, is under challenge in this petition under Art. 226 of the constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 2 rejected the petitioners application for what is popularly known as the N. A. Permission under Sec. 65 of the bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code for brief ). A copy of the impugned order is at Annexure-I to this petition. ( 2 ) DURING the pendency of this petition, respondent No. 2 appears to have passed one order on 7th September 1996. Its xerox copy is produced before this court. It is ordered to be kept on record. On instructions from respondent No. 2 herself stated to be present in the court, learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Sompura states that the order in question has been passed by respondent No. 2 on 7th September, 1996. It transpires therefrom that the impugned order at Annexure-I to this petition has been revoked. In that view of the matter, this petition would not survive. ( 3 ) IT further transpires from the aforesaid order passed by respondent No. 2 on 7th september, 1996 that respondent No. 2 has not been able to fix the N. A. Assessment with respect to the land in question only on the ground that the construct avity has not commenced within the stipulated time-limit of one year in terms of order passed by the Competent Authority granting permission under Sec. 21 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief ). In its ruling in the case of kanaiyalal Maneklal Sheth vs. Competent Authority, reported in AIR 1994 Gujarat at page 130, this court has held that the Competent Authority has no power to impose any such condition requiring the landholder to commence the construction activity within one year from the date of the order granting permission under Sec. 21 (1) of the Act. In that view of the matter, even if such condition appears in the order passed by the 878 competent Authority granting permission under Sec. 21 (1) of the Act, it has to be completely ignored in view of the aforesaid ruling of this Court. In that view of the matter, even if such condition appears in the order passed by the 878 competent Authority granting permission under Sec. 21 (1) of the Act, it has to be completely ignored in view of the aforesaid ruling of this Court. It cannot be gainsaid that a ruling of this Court is binding to all courts, tribunals and authorities within the State of Gujarat. In fact, after the aforesaid ruling of this court, no Competent Authority should incorporate in its order granting permission under Sec. 21 (1) of the Act any such condition requiring the landholder to commence the construction activity within one year or within any other duration from the date of the order. In that view of the matter, respondent No. 2 should ignore the condition, if any, imposed by the Competent authority regarding commencement of the construction within the time-limit of one year or within any stipulated time-limit in the order granting permission under Sec. 21 (1) of the Act. ( 4 ) IN view of this direction given to respondent No. 2, this petition does not survive. It may however be open to the petitioner to move respondent No. 2 or any other appropriate authority for fixation of the N. A. Assessment with respect to the land in question. As and when such application is made which learned Advocate Shri M. C. Bhatt for the petitioner states will be made, within two weeks from today, respondent No. 2 shall endeavour to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible preferably within four weeks from its date. Subject to this direction, this petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as to costs. The ad-interim relief stands vacated. .