Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—As many as 19 persons, all residents of Prantij, are before this Court challenging legality and validity of the order passed by Respondent No. 4–Secretary (Appeals) dated 16.02.1995, whereby NA permission granted by District Development Officer, Sabarkantha is cancelled and an order is passed to the effect that Respondent No. 3 – Deputy Collector, Modasa shall take over the land in question to the Government Head. As there were threats from the respondent authorities to remove the residential houses of the petitioners, the petitioners are before this Court. 2. The facts leading to the present proceedings are set out in Para-3 of the petition. For ready perusal, the same is reproduced hereunder:— “3. the petitioners respectfully state that one Revashankar Maganlal Pandya of Prantij had purchased the land bearing Survey No. 908 of Prantij admeasuring 6374 sq. mtrs. The D.D.O. Sabarkantha had granted N.A. Permission in respect of the said land by order dated 03.09.1993. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A to the petition is the copy of the N.A. permission. Having obtained the N.A. permission, the said Revashankar Pandya had sold the various plots to the present petitioners by executing sale deeds. The entries were duly recorded in the Revenue Records regarding the aforesaid sale of the plots to the petitioners. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-B collectively to the petition are the copies of some of the revenue entries in respect of the sale of the aforesaid plots to the petitioners. Most of the petitioners have constructed the residential houses having the development permission from Prantij Municipal Borough. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-C collectively to the petition are copies of some of the construction permissions. The petitioners state that they have been paying the municipal taxes for the residential houses. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-D collectively to the petition are the copies of some of the tax receipts.” 2.1 The important aspect of the matter is that the petitioners are the subsequent purchasers of the land in question and they have already put up construction (residential houses) and they are residing on the land in question. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-D collectively to the petition are the copies of some of the tax receipts.” 2.1 The important aspect of the matter is that the petitioners are the subsequent purchasers of the land in question and they have already put up construction (residential houses) and they are residing on the land in question. This aspect is properly reflected in order dated 24.12.2004 passed by this Court, which reads as under: — “Prima facie it appears that after the land is converted into N.A. Use, the order could not have been cancelled on the ground that the land remained as unutilised agricultural land as per the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. It further appears that the petitioners have purchased the land and as per the petitioners they have made construction of the houses and they are staying and no hearing has been given to the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances, Rule. Ad-interim relief granted earlier shall continue as interim relief 2.2 By order dated 15.10.2004, the Court was pleased to order status quo regarding possession of the land in question. It is not in dispute that the status quo is maintained till today and the petitioners are in possession of the land on which they have put up construction of their residential houses. 3. Learned Advocate Ms. Archana Patel for learned Advocate Mr. J.V. Japee for the petitioners invited attention of the Court to the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) dated 09.03.1995, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-H. In the opening para of the said order, one of the grounds on which the authority decided to cancel the transfer of sale is that, “the land in question, purchased by Shri Revashankar Pandya, was not the agriculturist and therefore, he could not have purchased this land. Besides that, he was not holding agricultural land within 8 km. radius of the land in question and therefore, the transaction was in violation of the provisions of Section 2(7) and Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act”. Besides second ground taken into consideration is that, “from the extracts of village form No. 7/12, it is noticed that the land had remained fallow for a period of more than 2 years consecutively”. Besides second ground taken into consideration is that, “from the extracts of village form No. 7/12, it is noticed that the land had remained fallow for a period of more than 2 years consecutively”. In addition to the aforesaid grounds, the authority has also taken into considration that, “the land was of new tenure land and of restricted tenure as it was given to one Laxmigauri Sumanchandra Nathalal under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act”. 3.1 In para-4, the authority has found that the first ground that purchaser Shri Revashankar Pandya was not the agriculturist is devoid of any merit. In fact, necessary documentary evidence was produced showing that said Shri Revashankar Pandya was of village Poglu of Tal. Prantij and he was an agriculturist, in support of that, village form No. 8A, Account No. 140 was produced. The distance between village Poglu and Prantij is only 4 km. and thus, the first ground does not survive. Coming to the second ground, documentary evidence in the form of certificate from Talati-cum-Mantri of Prantij was produced, wherein it is mentioned that years 1986-87 to 1989-90 were of ‘scarcity’ or ‘semi-scarcity’. If that was so, ground of land having remained fallow could not have been pressed into service. Similarly, the question about grant of land to Laxmigauri Sumanchandra Nathalal under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was also found to be without any substance. It is specifically mentioned that, “under Section 32, entry No. 5027 was made on 28.06.1968, which was confirmed pursuant to order dated 10.04.1968; that the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Sabarkantha has erred in not taking into consideration in its order dated 11.01.1990 certain facts”. It is then recorded that, “as per the amendment of 1955, this land was held by Shri Sumanchandra Nathalal as a new tenure land and for converting this land from new tenure to old tenure, required premium is to be paid. This land is transferred without paying such premium and the person who purchased this land applied for NA Permission and District Development Officer, Sabarkantha granted that permission. But then, the aforesaid NA Permission cannot be said to be lawful”. 4. In this regard, learned Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to order dated 03/06.09.1993 passed by the District Development Officer, granting NA Permission. But then, the aforesaid NA Permission cannot be said to be lawful”. 4. In this regard, learned Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to order dated 03/06.09.1993 passed by the District Development Officer, granting NA Permission. There, it is specifically mentioned that, “There is an opinion from the Collector, Sabarkantha vide letter dated 11.02.1993 that as there is a breach of Tenancy Act, NA permission should not be granted”. The District Development Officer has then referred to notice dated 09.07.1993 given by Mamlatdar & ALT bearing TNC Case No. 1205/93, whereby it was decided that, “there is no breach of Section 32-T and Section 37 of Tenancy Act”. Therefore, notice issued was withdrawn and the proceedings were closed. This aspect was taken into consideration by the Executive Committee and it was decided that there is no question of any breach of Section 32-T of the Tenancy Act. Thus, all the grounds on which the order granting NA Permission was challenged were found to be without any substance. 5. This Court is convinced of the fact that the Secretary (Appeals) has erred in passing the order under challenge. On perusal of papers, the order passed by the District Development Officer is found to be in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. Order dated 16.02.1995 passed by respondent No.4, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-H and order dated 30.09.1995 passed by Respondent No. 3, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-I are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No costs.