Judgment Akil Kureshi, J.—Both these appeals arise out of a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.1.02 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2822 of 1999. 2. Facts in brief are as follows: 2.1 Special Civil Application No. 2822 of 1999 was filed by one Parkland Avenue Co-operative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the petitioner society’). The petition pertains to a parcel of land situated in village Santaj, Taluka Kalol, District Mehsana which the petitioner society had purchased in the year 1983 from its erstwhile owners, which land shall be hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘suit land’. 2.2 The suit land was a new tenure land held by the erstwhile owners on impartible tenure. The land, therefore, had to be converted into old tenure before transfer. Since the petitioner was desirous of purchasing the suit land and also put up construction thereon and since the land was agricultural land, non-agricultural use permission was also required to be obtained. 2.3 On an application made on or around 14.4.1982 by the erstwhile owners, the Taluka Development Officer fixed the premium of Rs. 1,41,450/- for conversion of the land in question by his order dated 23rd April 1982. Such amount was paid over by the erstwhile owners on 24th April 1982. The Taluka Development Officer thereupon by his order dated 26.04.1982 granted non-agricultural use permission to the land in question under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (BLR Code for short). Significantly, premium for conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure is charged under Section 43 of he Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Tenancy Act, for short). 2.4 The State Government, however, was of the opinion that the Taluka Development Officer, Kalol did not have the authority to grant non-agricultural use permission under Section 65 of the BLR Code and that therefore, the order dated 26th April, 1982 was without authority. The order of the Taluka Development Officer was, therefore, taken into suo motu revision and after hearing the erstwhile owners, the State Government by its order dated 29th April, 1983, set aside the order of the Taluka Development Officer dated 26th April, 1982. 2.5 The erstwhile owners preferred Special Civil Application No. 202 of 1984 challenging the order dated 29th August, 1983 passed by the Government. 2.5 The erstwhile owners preferred Special Civil Application No. 202 of 1984 challenging the order dated 29th August, 1983 passed by the Government. The petition, however, came to be dismissed by a decision in the case of Govindbhai Somabhai Nai vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 1987 (2) GLR 760 . The judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench in LPA No. 343/87 and connected appeals. During the course of hearing of the LPAs, Mehsana District Panchayat agreed to process the N.A. Applications of the erstwhile owners and dispose of the same in accordance with law. In view of the stand taken by the Mehsana Distirct Panchayat, LPAs were disposed of on 25th June, 1992. NA applications were, however, rejected by the District Panchayat on 4th December, 1992 which gave rise to fresh challenge in Special Civil Application No. 9345 of 1997. The said petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 3rd July, 1998 whereby the petitioner was allowed to make a fresh application to Mehsana District Panchayat for N.A. use permission. 2.6 The petitioner society applied to the District Collector, Mehsana on 4th April, 1995 and again on 12th November 1998 for conversion of land from new tenure to old tenure and for assessment of premium to be paid thereon at the market price prevailing as on 14th April 1982. The District Collector, Mehsana, vide his communication dated 8th April 1999 called upon the petitioner society to indicate whether the society would be willing to pay premium at the prevailing market rate. This communication the petitioner society challenged in Special Civil Application No. 2822 of 1999. 2.7. Before the learned Single Judge, the stand of the petitioner society was that the Taluka Development Officer had fixed the premium for conversion from new tenure to old tenure way back in the year 1982, that the Taluka Development Officer had authority to do so and that the said order of the Taluka Development Officer was never taken in revision by the Government. It was, therefore, the case of the petitioner Society that the Collector could not have asked the petitioner to pay premium at the rate prevailing in the year 1999. It was, therefore, the case of the petitioner Society that the Collector could not have asked the petitioner to pay premium at the rate prevailing in the year 1999. 2.8 Learned Single Judge, by her impugned decision, came to the conclusion that the order of the Taluka Development Officer fixing the premium for conversion of the land dated 23rd April, 1982 and the subsequent order dated 26th April, 1982 granting NA permission upon the premium being paid was a single integrated exercise and when the order of NA use permission was taken in revision by the Government and set aside, the order of the Taluka Development Officer fixing premium also could not stand. The learned Single Judge also held that the Taluka Development Officer had no authority to grant permission for conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure upon fixing of premium under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. The learned Judge, however, was of the opinion that the petitioner could not be made to pay the premium at the prevailing market price and that the District Collector should determine the premium payable under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act on the basis of the market rate prevailing as on 14th April, 1982, i.e. the date on which the erstwhile owners had, for the first time, applied for conversion of the land. It was further observed that no application for NA permission had been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was, therefore, directed to make such an application to the concerned authorities within 15 days from the date of order. The District Collector or an officer authorized was directed to determine the premium payable under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. 2.9 In so far as the learned Single Judge permitted the authorities to fix the premium afresh, the petitioner society has challenged the decision in LPA No. 117/02. In so far as the learned Single Judge directing the Collector to fix the premium under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act on the basis of the market rate prevailing as on 14th April, 1982 is concerned, the State Government has challenged the same in LPA No. 109/02. 3. In so far as the learned Single Judge directing the Collector to fix the premium under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act on the basis of the market rate prevailing as on 14th April, 1982 is concerned, the State Government has challenged the same in LPA No. 109/02. 3. Learned Advocate Shri A.J. Patel for the petitioner society contended that the Government had taken in revision the order dated 26th April, 1982 passed by the Taluka Development Officer granting NA permission whereas the earlier order dated 23rd April, 1982 fixing the premium under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act was not challenged. He, therefore, contended that the Collector had no authority to fix premium all over again. 3.1 He also contended that in any case, the Taluka Development Officer had requisite authority under law to assess the premium under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act by virtue of delegation under Section 157 of the BLR Code. He contended that in any view of the matter, the Collector was not justified in proposing to assess premium at the market rate prevailing in the year 1999. 3.2 Reliance was placed on a decision in the case of Minaben A. Gandhi vs. State, 1992 (1) GLR 413 wherein the learned Judge held that power to grant permission for non-agricultural use also vested with the Taluka Development Officer by virtue of Government Resolution even in respect of new tenure land acquired by the person under the Tenancy Act. 3.2 Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Apex court in the case of Union of India vs. Mahajan Indsutries Ltd., (2005) 10 SCC 203 wherein the crucial date for collecting the conversion charges was taken to be the date of application for conversion of the land use. It may, however, be noted that the Apex Court observed that “Counsel for the appellant has not disputed the correctness of the law laid down by the High Court of Delhi in Ansal & Saigal Properties (P) Ltd. vs. L. & D.O., in which it has been held that the crucial date for calculating the conversion charges has to be the date of receipt of application for conversion of land use”. Thus the said decision was rendered on concession. Thus the said decision was rendered on concession. 3.3 Reliance was placed on a decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ashutosh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. State, 1995 (2) GLR 1419 wherein the learned Judge observed that charging market value of the land on the date of allotment of a plot would be a reasonable policy. 3.4 The Counsel further submitted that after the decision of the learned Single Judge in the present matter the petitioner-society had also applied to the authorities for fixation of premium under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act as well as for grant of NA use permission and such applications had not been taken into account by the authorities. Our attention was drawn to an application dated 2.3.2002 produced at page 69 in the paper book of LPA No. 117/02 made by the petitioner society to the Collector, Mehsana pointing out the decision of the learned Single Judge and requesting for fixation of premium under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act with reference to the price prevailing in April, 1982. Subsequent reminders have also been produced on record. 4. On the other hand, learned AGP Shri Devang Vyas on behalf of the Government submitted that the Taluka Development Officer had no authority either to fix premium under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act or to grant non-agricultural use permission under Section 65 of the BLR Code. The Government, therefore, rightly revised the order of the Taluka Development Officer and recalled the NA use permission. He further submitted that in view of this, fixation of premium by the Taluka Development Officer could not stand. 4.1 He further contended that the application made to the Taluka Development Officer in the year 1982 seeking conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure was made to an authority which had no power to grant such an application. The learned Single Judge therefore erred in directing the Collector to fix the premium at the price prevailing on the date of such application. 4.3 He relied on the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Govindbhai Somabhai Nai vs. State of Gujarat (Supra) wherein it was held that the Taluka Development Officer had no authority to entertain the application for NA use permission. 4.3 He relied on the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Govindbhai Somabhai Nai vs. State of Gujarat (Supra) wherein it was held that the Taluka Development Officer had no authority to entertain the application for NA use permission. He further contended that the premium for conversion of the land should be assessed on the basis of land price prevailing on the date when such decision is being taken. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having perused the material on record, we do not find that the learned Single Judge committed any error in holding that the Taluka Development Officer did not have power to grant NA use permission. This issue was considered by the learned Single Judge in following manner : “It is indisputable that the power to grant permission for NA use hitherto conferred upon the Collector under Section 65 of the Code had been transferred to the District Panchayats by the State Government under its Order dated 25th March, 1963 made in exercise of the power conferred under Section 157 (1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961. It is also not disputed that under the Government Resolution dated 25th March, 1963, the District Panchayats were empowered to delegate the said power to the subordinate Panchayats. It is equally indisputable that the District Panchayat, Mehsana had not delegated its power to grant permission for NA use to the subordinate Panchayats i.e., for the present matter, the Taluka Development Officer, Kalol was not empowered to grant permission for non-agricultural use under Section 65 of the Code. The fact that the Taluka Development Officer had given permission for non-agriculture use of the lands on 26th April, 1982 without the authority of law is confirmed by the judgment of this Court in the matter of Govindbhai Somabhai Nai & Ors. [Supra].” 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner society was also not able to dislodge this finding of the learned single Judge. No material has been produced on record either before the learned Single Judge or before us to show that the District Panchayat, Mehsana had delegated its powers to grant NA use permission to its subordinate Panchayats. The Taluka Development Officer thus acted without authority in granting NA permission to the petitioner society. 7. No material has been produced on record either before the learned Single Judge or before us to show that the District Panchayat, Mehsana had delegated its powers to grant NA use permission to its subordinate Panchayats. The Taluka Development Officer thus acted without authority in granting NA permission to the petitioner society. 7. We are equally in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge that the Taluka Development Officer assessing the premium for conversion of land from new tenure to old tenure under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and thereafter granting NA use permission to the original land owners was undertaking a single integrated exercise. Significantly, the application was made by the original land holders on or around 14th April, 1982. Premium was fixed by the Taluka Development Officer on 23rd April, 1982. The same was paid over by the owners of the land on 24th April, 1982 and NA use permission was granted on 26th April, 1982 also by the Taluka Development Officer. It is also not in dispute that the land in question was an agricultural land and was held by the land owners on new and impartible tenure. The same had to be converted into old tenure land and also had to be converted into non-agricultural land before the petitioner could have purchased the same and put it to non-agricultural use. In that view of the matter, when the Government took the order of the Taluka Development Officer dated 26th April, 1982 in suo motu revision and set aside the same, the entire exercise came to be nullified. The order of the Taluka Development Officer fixing the premium under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act could not stand alone. Mere technicality of such order not being taken in challenge by the Government would not permit the petitioner society to contend that such assessment would continue even today and since the premium so fixed was already paid over by the land owners, all that is required is that the authority should grant NA use permission. Mere technicality of such order not being taken in challenge by the Government would not permit the petitioner society to contend that such assessment would continue even today and since the premium so fixed was already paid over by the land owners, all that is required is that the authority should grant NA use permission. Quite apart from the view of the learned Single Judge with which we are in complete agreement, independently also, we find that after the Government set aside the order of the Taluka Development Officer granting NA use permission for the land in question, application came to be made on behalf of the petitioner-society for conversion of the land under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and for assessment of premium thereon. Such an application was filed before the District Collector, Mehsana on 4th April, 1995 and again on 19th November, 1998. It was upon these applications that the Collector called upon the petitioner society to show willingness to pay premium as on the prevailing market price. Thus the petitioner Society itself applied to the Collector de novo for converting the land from new tenure to old tenure land upon payment of premium albeit at the market price prevailing as on 14th April, 1982. This would demonstrate that the petitioner society also for all practical purposes acquiesced in the position that upon the Government canceling the order of the Taluka Development Officer dated 26th April, 1982, for NA use permission, the order of fixation of premium under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act stood cancelled. 8. Under the circumstances, the appeal of the petitioner society must fail. 9. As far as the State appeal is concerned, the prime question is with reference to which date the assessment of premium under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act is to be fixed. The learned Single Judge, as already noted, directed that such premium shall be fixed with reference to the market price prevailing on 14th April, 1982, i.e. the date on which the original land owners had applied to the Taluka Development Officer for the said purpose. 10. The question shall have to be decided in the peculiar facts of this case and we do not propose to lay down any general proposition of law in this regard. 10. The question shall have to be decided in the peculiar facts of this case and we do not propose to lay down any general proposition of law in this regard. As already noted, we are convinced that the Taluka Development Officer had no power either to grant conversion of land from new tenure to old tenure upon charging premium or to grant NA use permission. Even in the case of Minaben A. Gandhi (Supra), the learned Single Judge while observing that by Government resolution, power for conversion of land stood transferred to the Taluka Development Officer even in respect of new tenure land, further held that in such a case requirement was that premium must be determined by the Collector. In the present case, admittedly, premium was not fixed by the Collector. The entire exercise of fixation of premium, payment thereof by the original land owners and the consequent conversion of the land to non-agriculture use by the Taluka Development Officer was thus unauthorized and stood nullified upon the Government taking the order of the Taluka Development Officer in suo motu revision and cancelling the same. The learned Single Judge while holding so, directed the Collector, Mehsana to fix premium under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act on the basis of the price prevailing as on 14th April, 1982. While so doing, the learned Single Judge also noticed that no fresh application for non-agricultural use permission has been filed. The petitioner society was permitted to file such an application before the Collector, a copy of which is produced alongwith the additional affidavit filed in the appeal. First such application is dated 2nd March, 2002. Several reminders and notices have also been issued by the petitioner society and copies of such reminders are also produced alongwith said affidavit. The State though had preferred appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge, no stay was granted in the appeal. 11. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case though we find that the order fixation of premium at the prevailing market price as on 14th April, 1982 cannot be sustained, the request of the Collector to permit him to charge premium at the market price prevailing on the date of decision cannot be approved. Permitting the Collector now to fix premium at the price prevailing currently would also result into gross injustice to the petitioner Society. Permitting the Collector now to fix premium at the price prevailing currently would also result into gross injustice to the petitioner Society. Despite repeated reminders, the Collector, did not decide the applications filed by the petitioner society in the year 2002 pursuant to the decision of the learned Single Judge though no stay was obtained by the State in appeal. 12. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances highlighted hereinabove, we are of the opinion that though the direction of the learned Single Judge to fix the premium at the prevailing market price as on 14th April, 1982 needs to be modified, at the same time, the Collector also cannot be permitted to relate it to the presently prevailing market rate. Balancing equities, it would be appropriate to permit the Collector to assess and collect premium from the petitioner-society at the market rate prevailing as on 2.3.2002, the date on which the petitioner society applied to the Collector for grant of NA use permission pursuant to the directions issued by the learned single Judge. The premium so fixed shall be payable by the petitioner society alongwith simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 2nd March, 2002 till the actual payment. The original land owners/petitioner-society have already paid a sum of on Rs. 1,41,450/- on the basis of the premium fixed by the Taluka Development Officer. This amount was paid on or around 24th April, 1982. The same is lying with the Government till date. The said amount with reasonable interest thereon shall have to be adjusted towards the premium which the petitioner-society may ultimately be asked to pay. We can take judicial notice of the fact that interest rates of bank were considerably higher in 1980’s and 1990’s as compared to the decade of 2000. Resultantly, the said amount of Rs. 1,41,450/-, for the purpose of adjustment towards the liability of premium to be paid by the petitioner-society, shall carry simple interest at the rate 12% per annum from 24th April, 1982 to 2nd March, 2002 and thereafter simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the Collector passes his order fixing such a premium. 13. With the above directions, the Letters Patent Appeals are disposed of.