JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 7937/2011 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the said Special Civil Application preferred by the respondent herein – original petitioner [hereinafter referred to as “original petitioner”], the appellants herein – original respondents [hereinafter referred to as “State”] have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nutshell are as under: 2.1 That grandmother of the original petitioner became the owner of the land bearing survey No.72 by virtue of the proceedings under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as “Tenancy Act”], however subject to the restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and as new tenure (restricted) land. That the grandmother of the petitioner – original owner died/expired in the year 1970. That on the demise of grandmother of the petitioner, the aforesaid land was mutated in the name of her three daughters viz. Jamnaben (mother of the original petitioner), Gangaben and Naniben. That the aforesaid land later on came to be partitioned and each of the sister received 1/3rd of the land. That on the demise of the mother of the petitioner – Jamnaben, the land in question came to be transferred and mutated in the name of the petitioner as per the Will executed by the mother of the petitioner. That part of the land bearing survey No.72 came to be acquired by the competent authority for Pala Yojna in the year 1979 which included entire land of the mother of the petitioner and part of Gangaben. That the Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1879 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] on 26.03.1979 determining the compensation for the lands acquired. That while awarding the compensation and/or actual payment of the compensation determined, 5% of the compensation came to be deducted as the land acquired was a new tenure land. That the Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1879 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] on 26.03.1979 determining the compensation for the lands acquired. That while awarding the compensation and/or actual payment of the compensation determined, 5% of the compensation came to be deducted as the land acquired was a new tenure land. That thereafter the mother of the petitioner – Jamnaben moved an application seeking re-grant of the land owned by her and which was acquired under the provisions of the Act and even for which the award was declared under the provisions of the Act and the amount of compensation [deducting 5%] was paid to the original land owner, as the land was not covered by the Flood Protection Scheme and therefore, the same was not required to be used for the purpose for which the same was acquired. It is required to be noted that the re-grant of the land after the acquisition under the Act was under Para 328 of the Land Acquisition Manual. That in the meantime and before any order for re-grant of the land acquired could be considered and granted, said Jamnaben – mother of the petitioner died in the month of October, 1987. That thereafter the land in question was bequeathed by Will executed by the said Jamnaben, in favour of the petitioner. That thereafter the application submitted by the original owner – Jamnaben for re-grant of the land came to be processed and after obtaining opinion from the Executive Engineer, Surat etc., the Collector, Surat sent a proposal to the State Government vide communication dated 01.01.1990. That thereafter after completing further formalities the proposal was sent to the Revenue Department, State of Gujarat. That thereafter the Revenue Department, State of Gujarat granted the permission to the Collector, Surat to re-grant the land on payment of market price prevailing as per Para 328 of the Land Acquisition Manual and communicated the Collector to pass a detail order of re-grant. That thereafter the Revenue Department, State of Gujarat granted the permission to the Collector, Surat to re-grant the land on payment of market price prevailing as per Para 328 of the Land Acquisition Manual and communicated the Collector to pass a detail order of re-grant. That thereafter on payment of the market price prevailing, by detailed order dated 15.04.2004 the Collector, Surat re-granted the land to the petitioner on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order dated 15.04.2004 including the condition that on re-grant the land shall be continued to be held by the owner in the same tenure as it was at the time of acquisition of the land i.e. new tenure and also on condition that the petitioner shall submit an undertaking that they are agreeable to the terms and conditions of the order and that in future neither the petitioner nor her heir shall raise any objection. That the petitioner herein submitted the necessary undertaking and accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the order dated 15.04.2004. On furnishing the undertaking and on having satisfied that the petitioner has complied with the conditions mentioned in the order dated 15.04.2004, the petitioner was handed over the possession of the land which was acquired and which was re-granted pursuant to the order dated 15.04.2004. 2.2 That subsequently the land was included in the Town Planning Scheme under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as “Town Planning Act”] and in lieu of the land which was re-granted to the petitioner, the petitioner came to be allotted two final plots i.e. Final Plot Nos.83 and 84. That thereafter after a period of approximately 7 years from the date of re-grant dated 15.04.2004, the petitioner through her power of attorney preferred the petition challenging the condition stipulated in the order dated 15.04.2004 namely the land was re-granted on the condition that the land shall be continued to be in the same position/tenure which was prevailing at the time when the land was acquired i.e. to continue the land as new tenure land subject to restriction under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act which was there at the time when the land was acquired. 2.3 That by impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge has allowed the said Special Civil Application and has quashed and set aside the order dated 15.04.2004 insofar as re-granting the land with restrictions as new tenure land [though the learned Single Judge has considered it as old tenure]. 2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the State of Gujarat – original respondents have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the appellants – State and Shri R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Shri C.B. Upadhyaya, learned advocate on behalf of the original petitioner. 3.1 Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in allowing the petition and quashing and setting aside the order dated 15.04.2004 passed by the Collector insofar as re-granting the land on condition that the land shall be continued to be with the same restrictions/tenure which was at the time when the land was acquired and thereby removing the restrictions as a new tenure land. 3.2 Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that as such the petition was preferred challenging the said condition after a period of 7 years from the date of order of re-grant. 3.3 It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that as such the delay of 7 years in preferring the petition challenging the condition while re-granting the land has not been explained at all by the petitioner. It is submitted that in absence of any such explanation, the learned Single Judge ought not to have granted the relief to the petitioner which has been granted. 3.4 It is further submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that as such the petitioner accepted the order of re-grant and with the conditions imposed while re-granting the land. It is submitted that even at the relevant time the petitioner submitted the undertaking/kabuliatnama before the Collector, Surat accepting the conditions mentioned in the order dated 15.04.2004, and only thereafter having satisfied that all the conditions are satisfied/complied, the Collector, Surat handed over the possession/returned the possession to the petitioner. It is submitted that even at the relevant time the petitioner submitted the undertaking/kabuliatnama before the Collector, Surat accepting the conditions mentioned in the order dated 15.04.2004, and only thereafter having satisfied that all the conditions are satisfied/complied, the Collector, Surat handed over the possession/returned the possession to the petitioner. It is submitted that therefore, thereafter it was not open for the petitioner to challenge the condition imposed while re-granting the land. 3.5 It is further submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that as such the petitioner suppressed the material fact of tendering such an undertaking before the Collector accepting the terms and conditions on which the land was re-granted and did not disclose the same in the petition and even before the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that therefore on the ground of suppression of material fact and not disclosing the correct facts, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3.6 It is further submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that even otherwise even on merits also the learned Single Judge has materially erred in deleting/quashing and setting aside the condition imposed while re-granting the land i.e. condition that the land shall be re-granted as it was at the time when the land was originally acquired i.e. with same restrictions/restricted land/new tenure land which was at the time when the land was originally acquired. It is submitted that as such once the land was acquired and the award was declared and the amount of compensation was paid, the petitioner was not entitled to re-grant of the land as a matter of course and/or as a matter of right. It is submitted that the re-grant of the land is contained in para 328 of the Land Acquisition Manual and as per the policy of the State Government. It is submitted that as per the policy of the State Government the land can be re-granted on payment of the market price and on condition that the tenure of the land which was prevailing at the time of acquisition shall be continued and/or the land can be re-granted with same restrictions prevailing at the time when the land was originally acquired. It is submitted that in cases of other persons the lands came to be re-granted on the same terms and conditions on which the land came to be re-granted to the petitioner. It is submitted that all other land owners including the original land owner as such accepted the condition imposed while re-granting the land i.e. re-granting the land with conditions/restrictions/with same tenure as it was at the time of acquisition. It is submitted that as such it was not incumbent and/or there was no compulsion on the part of the petitioner to accept the re-grant of the land with conditions. It is submitted that as such the petitioner accepted the condition imposed while re-granting the land and only thereafter possession of the land came to be handed over to the petitioner. It is submitted that if at that time the petitioner was not agreeable to the condition on which the land was re-granted, the petitioner ought not to have accepted the same and in that case the petitioner would not have been handed over/returned the possession of the land. It is submitted that the petitioner accepted the condition imposed while re-granting the land which was imposed as per the policy of the State Government while re-granting the land acquired and not only that even the petitioner tendered/submitted the kabuliatnama accepting the condition imposed while re-granting the land. It is submitted that therefore after a period of 7 years from the date of the re-grant of the land, thereafter it was not open for the petitioner to challenge the same i.e. challenge the condition imposed while re-granting the land. It is submitted that therefore on the ground of acquiescences and estopple also the petitioner was not entitled to the relief as prayed in the petition. 3.7 It is further submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in observing that the Collector, Surat while passing the order dated 15.04.2004 and imposing the condition ought not to have gone beyond the order passed by the State Government. 3.7 It is further submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in observing that the Collector, Surat while passing the order dated 15.04.2004 and imposing the condition ought not to have gone beyond the order passed by the State Government. It is submitted that as such the order passed by the State Government was on the proposal sent by the Collector to grant permission to re-grant the land which came to be accepted by the State Government and thereafter the Collector was to pass the detailed order of re-grant with necessary conditions as per the policy of the State Government. It is submitted that State Government while granting the permission to the Collector to re-grant the land never restricted the Collector in passing the further order/detailed order and/or directed the Collector to re-grant the land unconditionally. It is submitted that therefore the learned Single Judge has materially erred in observing that the Collector, Surat while re-granting the land vide order dated 15.04.2004 had gone beyond the order passed by the State Government by imposing the condition No.1 i.e. re-granting the land on the condition that the land shall be continued to be in the same position which was prevailing at the time when the land was acquired. 3.8 It is further submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in observing that on deducting 5% from the amount of compensation paid at the time of acquisition of land, the restriction of new tenure came to be withdrawn. It is submitted that while so observing the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that the competent authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer under the Act has no authority and/or jurisdiction to remove the restriction under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act i.e. the restrictions imposed as new tenure land. It is submitted that deduction of 5% from the compensation under the Act has nothing to do with the removal of restrictions as new tenure land and/or restricted land. It is submitted that as such for removing the restrictions as a new tenure land and/or restricted land under Section 43 of the Act, premium as per the policy of the State Government is required to be paid by the land owners. It is submitted that as such for removing the restrictions as a new tenure land and/or restricted land under Section 43 of the Act, premium as per the policy of the State Government is required to be paid by the land owners. It is submitted that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai and Others vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in AIR 2014 SC 3687 , charging the premium while removing the restriction under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act is not a tax and/or cess and it is a condition of grant of land. It is further submitted that even otherwise the learned Single Judge has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the condition imposed by the Collector, Surat, imposed while granting the land to the petitioner vide order dated 15.04.2004, re-granting the land on a condition and/or with a condition that the land is re-granted as it was at the time when the land was acquired. It is submitted that if the land would not have been acquired under the provisions of the Act in that case the land would have been continued as a new tenure land and restricted tenure land under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. It is submitted that therefore merely because subsequently the land came to be acquired under the provisions of the Act which came to be subsequently re-granted, the land is required to be re-granted as it was at the time when the land was acquired i.e. with same restrictions which were prevailing at the time when the land was originally acquired. It is submitted that unless and until the amount of premium as per the policy of the State Government is paid, the tenure of the land would not be changed and the land shall not be converted from new tenure to old tenure and restriction under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act would not be removed. It is submitted that in the present case the amount of premium would come to approximately Rs.5 Crores. It is submitted that pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing and setting aside the condition on which the land was re-granted, there would be a huge financial loss approximately to the tune of Rs.5 Crores to the State. It is submitted that pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing and setting aside the condition on which the land was re-granted, there would be a huge financial loss approximately to the tune of Rs.5 Crores to the State. It is submitted that, that is why the petitioner challenged the condition imposed while re-granting the land, after period of 7 years and that too through a power of attorney. It is submitted that as such prior to the execution of the power of attorney through whom the present petition is preferred, the petitioner Ratnaben never challenged the condition imposed in the order dated 15.04.2004. It is submitted that only after the power of attorney came to be executed in favour of the person through whom the petition is filed, who is staying at Ahmedabad, it seems that it was the power of attorney who preferred the petition and challenged the condition imposed in the order dated 15.04.2004. It is submitted that all these aforesaid aspects have not been considered by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order. Making above submissions and relying upon the above decision it is requested to allow the present Letters Patent Appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and consequently to dismiss the Special Civil Application. 4. Present Letters Patent Appeal is opposed by Shri R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner. 4.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner that as such in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in allowing the petition and quashing and setting aside the order dated 15.04.2004 passed by the Collector, Surat of re-grant of the land to the petitioner insofar as condition No.1 i.e. re-granting the land as it was at the time when the land was acquired. 4.2 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner that after the land in question was acquired for Pala Yojna under the provisions of the Act and thereafter the award for compensation was declared under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner – original owner was paid 5% less compensation on the ground that the land was a new tenure land. It is submitted that therefore while paying 5% less compensation, the restrictions as a new tenure land came to be removed and the land was acquired, free from all encumbrances and without any restriction. It is submitted that therefore thereafter when the land came to be re-granted as the land was not required for the purpose for which it was acquired and on payment of the market price, it was not open for the Collector, Surat to impose the condition and/or re-grant the land on a condition that the land shall be continued as it was at the time when the land was acquired i.e. as new tenure and restricted land. 4.3 It is further submitted by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner that therefore when it was found by the learned Single Judge that condition No.1 imposed by the Collector while passing the order dated 15.04.2004 and while re-granting the land was absolutely illegal and even beyond the permission granted by the State Government, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in quashing and setting aside such a condition. 4.4 It is further submitted by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner that even otherwise such a condition could not have been imposed in light of Para 328 of the Land Acquisition Manual. It is submitted that the land acquired can be re-granted to the original owner subject to the conditions mentioned in Para 328 of the Land Acquisition Manual i.e. on payment of the market price, which the original petitioner paid. 4.5 It is further submitted by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner that as such, such a condition to re-grant the land acquired as new tenure land would be contrary to Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. 4.5 It is further submitted by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner that as such, such a condition to re-grant the land acquired as new tenure land would be contrary to Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. It is submitted that the restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act can be imposed and/or the land can be granted as new tenure land subject to restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act only in a case where the land is granted under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. It is submitted that in the present case the land has not been granted/re-granted under the provisions of the Tenancy Act and therefore, while passing the order of re-grant dated 15.04.2004, it was not open for the Collector to impose the condition to re-grant the land as new tenure land which was there at the time when the land was originally acquired. 4.6 It is further submitted by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner that as such no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 5. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the State that there was a delay of 7 years in preferring the petition and challenging the condition which has not been explained in the petition is concerned, it is submitted by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner that as such no such ground was taken/canvassed before the learned Single Judge and therefore, it is not permissible and/or open for the State now to take the contention with respect to delay of laches in preferring the petition and challenging the condition imposed in the order dated 15.04.2004. 5.1 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the State that there is a suppression of material fact by the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner did not disclose before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner in the year 2004 gave the undertaking before the Collector, Surat that they abide by the terms and conditions on which the land is granted is concerned, it is submitted by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that as such no such kabuliatnama which is now produced in the present Letters Patent Appeal was produced before the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that even no such contention/ground was raised before the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that unless and until such a kabuliatnama is produced by way of additional evidence and after following due procedure, the State cannot be permitted to rely upon the same now. It is submitted that even the submission on behalf of the State that on furnishing the undertaking by the petitioner before the Collector, Surat in the year 2004 accepting the terms and conditions on which the land was re-granted, on the ground of acquiescences and estopple, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the same is concerned, it is submitted by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner that the objection with respect to the acquiescences and estopple is to be pleaded and averred. It is submitted that unless and until such an objection of acquiescences and estopple is raised and pleaded before the learned Single Judge, it is not open for the State now to raise such a ground of acquiescences and estopple. 5.2 It is further submitted by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner that even the delay in preferring the petition has been properly explained by the petitioner in the petition. 5.3 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner that in the facts and circumstances of the case no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the petition and granting the relief as prayed for. Making above submissions it is requested to dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. Making above submissions it is requested to dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. 6.1 By impugned judgment and order in a petition which has been filed after a period of 7 years from the date of order of re-grant on certain conditions mentioned in the order of re-grant, learned Single Judge has allowed the petition and has quashed and set aside the order of re-grant of the land acquired dated 15.04.2004 insofar as the condition imposed to re-grant the land as it was at the time when the land was acquired i.e. as new tenure land and/or restricted tenure land which was at the time when the land was acquired. Meaning thereby the restriction as a new tenure land and/or restricted under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act has been removed and the land is ordered to be re-granted without any condition and/or without any such restrictions. 6.2 At the outset it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that tenure of the land can be converted and/or changed from new tenure to old tenure land and the restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act can be removed only on payment of premium and as per the policy of the State Government. Therefore, the land cannot be converted from new tenure to old tenure and/or restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act cannot be removed unless and until the premium determined as per the policy of the Government is paid. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai (Supra), the premium charged for removing the restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and while permitting the deemed purchaser to transfer his agricultural land is neither tax nor fee. It is further observed that the tenant holds the land under State and the premium charged is for granting the sanction. It is further observed that a benefit is acquired by the tenant under the scheme of the statute, and therefore, he must suffer the restrictions which are also imposed under the same statute. It is further observed that the tenant holds the land under State and the premium charged is for granting the sanction. It is further observed that a benefit is acquired by the tenant under the scheme of the statute, and therefore, he must suffer the restrictions which are also imposed under the same statute. As such by the impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge has removed the restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and/or has ordered to convert the land from new tenure to old tenure without making any payment of premium by the petitioner/land owner, which cannot be sustained. At this stage it is required to be noted and it is an admitted position that at the time when the land was originally acquired, the same was a new tenure land. Therefore, as such when the land was originally acquired it was a new tenure land and thereafter the same came to be acquired and thereafter it came to be re-granted, as such the necessary consequences shall be that the land is re-granted as it was at the time when the land was originally acquired. Therefore, as such while re-granting the land vide order dated 15.04.2004, the Collector rightly re-granted the land with condition that the land shall be continued to be as it was at the time when the land was originally acquired i.e. new tenure land. Merely because subsequently the land was acquired which came to be re-granted, the land will not be converted from new tenure to old tenure land and the restrictions which were there under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act cannot be removed automatically. It is required to be noted that as such the land has been re-granted with the aforesaid condition as per the policy of the State Government and which has been imposed by the State Government in all cases where the land acquired have been re-granted. The Collector had acted as per the policy of the State Government while re-granting the land acquired. The Collector had acted as per the policy of the State Government while re-granting the land acquired. The policy of the State Government to re-grant the land acquired has been mentioned in the Land Acquisition Manual itself and it provides that while re-granting the land acquired whether the land should be as new tenure or old tenure, the same can be as per the understanding/agreement between the original land owner and the Government, however normally and in ordinary circumstances the land can be re-granted on the same condition and/or with the same condition which was at the time when the land was originally acquired. It is required to be noted that as such in the present case there was no such agreement between the original land owner – petitioner herein and the Government that the land shall be re-granted as old tenure land. Therefore, as per the Government policy and as the land was new tenure when the land was acquired, as such the Collector had rightly imposed the condition No.1 i.e. re-granting the land on the same condition and/or restrictions which were prevailing at the time when the land was originally acquired. 6.3 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge it appears that what has been weighed by the learned Single Judge seems to be that at the time when the award of compensation was declared under the Act and the original petitioner was paid the compensation for the land acquired, he was paid 5% less compensation on the ground that the land was a new tenure land. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that as the petitioner – original land owner was paid 5% less compensation as the land was a new tenure land and therefore, the restriction of new tenure came to be removed. The aforesaid came to be accepted by the learned Single Judge. There the learned Single Judge has committed an error in observing that as at the time of payment of compensation, 5% less was paid to the original land owner as the land was a new tenure land, restrictions as a new tenure land came to be removed. The payment of compensation has nothing to do with the removal of restrictions as a new tenure land. The payment of compensation has nothing to do with the removal of restrictions as a new tenure land. The payment of compensation would be under the provisions of the Act and the restrictions as a new tenure land would be under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. The authority to convert the land from new tenure to old tenure and to remove the restriction would be altogether different and would not be that of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and/or authority under the Act. As observed herein above the land can be converted from new tenure to old tenure and the restrictions as such can be removed only on payment of premium as per the policy/Resolution of the State Government. Therefore, as such deduction of 5% at the time of payment of compensation for the land acquired had nothing to do with converting the land from new tenure to old tenure land. Therefore, as such it cannot be said that on deduction of 5% from the amount of compensation while making the payment of compensation under the Act, the land has been converted from new tenure to old tenure and/or the restriction as a new tenure land are removed. 6.4 At this stage it is required to be noted that even the petitioner preferred the Special Civil Application challenging the condition imposed in the order dated 15.04.2004 after a period of 7 years. The delay of 7 years in preferring the petition challenging the condition of re-grant imposed while passing an order dated 15.04.2004 has not been explained at all. There are no averments at all explaining the delay of 7 years in preferring the petition. The aforesaid is required to be considered and/or appreciated in light of the fact that in the year 2004 itself i.e. immediately after the order dated 15.04.2004, re-granting the land with condition, the petitioner submitted the undertaking/kabuliatnama before the Collector, Surat that they agree and/or they shall abide by the terms and conditions on which the land has been re-granted and on fulfilling all the conditions mentioned in the order dated 15.04.2004, the petitioner was returned and/or handed over the possession of the land in question. Even there is a suppression of material fact by the petitioner and in the petition the petitioner has not disclosed that the petitioner gave the undertaking/kabuliatnama before the Collector immediately after the order dated 15.04.2004 that they are agreeable to the conditions on which the land has been re-granted and that they shall abide by the conditions on which the land has been re-granted. It is true that before the learned Single Judge the aforesaid ground was not raised and/or the kabuliatnama/undertaking executed by the petitioner was not produced. However, the execution of the undertaking/kabuliatnama by the petitioner is not disputed by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner. He has fairly submitted that the petitioner is not disputing and cannot dispute the execution of such an undertaking/kabuliatnama as infact the petitioner did gave such undertaking/kabuliatnama. Therefore, as such on the ground of suppression of material fact and having accepted the terms and conditions on which the land was re-granted i.e. as new tenure land which was as such at the time when the land was acquired and the same was challenged after a period of 7 years that too by the power of attorney who seems to be residing at Ahmedabad and the petitioner belongs to Surat, the petitioner would not be entitled to any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage it is required to be noted that the aforesaid would be the additional ground on which the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. As observed herein above even on merits also the learned Single Judge has committed a grave error in quashing and setting aside the order dated 15.04.2004 insofar as re-granting the land acquired with condition No.1 i.e. as it was at the time when the land was acquired that is with the same restrictions i.e. as new tenure land. As observed herein above and it is not in dispute that the land can be converted from new tenure to old tenure and restriction under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act can be removed only on payment of premium as per the policy and resolution of the State Government. It is reported that in the present case the amount of premium would come to Rs.5 Crores if the land is converted from new tenure to old tenure and the restrictions are removed. It is reported that in the present case the amount of premium would come to Rs.5 Crores if the land is converted from new tenure to old tenure and the restrictions are removed. Thus, by impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge there would be a huge financial loss to the State Government to the extent of approximately Rs.5 Crores. The aforesaid aspect has also not been considered and/or appreciated by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order. 6.5 Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the original petitioner and the submission made by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner that the restriction under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act as a new tenure land can be imposed only in a case where the land has been granted under the provisions of the Tenancy Act and therefore, while re-granting the land, the land cannot be re-granted as a new tenure land and with restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act is concerned, the aforesaid seems to be attractive but has no substance. It is required to be noted that originally when the land was allotted to the original land owners it was under the provisions of the Tenancy Act and subject to restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and as a new tenure land which came to be acquired and subsequently re-granted. Therefore, when the land acquired came to be re-granted with condition i.e. on same position which was prevailing at the time of original acquisition and it has been re-granted as per the policy of the State Government, the authority is always justified in imposing the condition as per the policy. At this stage it is required to be noted that it is not a grant of land but it is re-grant of the land acquired and even for which the petitioner/original owner was paid the compensation under the Act. It was not incumbent upon the State Government to return/re-grant the land acquired under the Act and even for which the compensation was paid. Even as per the catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the land owner whose land has been acquired under the Act and who has been paid the compensation, cannot as a matter of right claim re-grant of the land. Even as per the catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the land owner whose land has been acquired under the Act and who has been paid the compensation, cannot as a matter of right claim re-grant of the land. Once the land was acquired and the amount of compensation was paid, thereafter it was open for the State Government to use the land for other public purpose. However, the State Government thought it fit to re-grant the land acquired considering Para 328 of the Land Acquisition Manual and on imposing the condition as per the policy of the State Government which has been applied uniformly with respect to all cases of re-grant. Therefore, it is always open for the State Government and/or appropriate authority to re-grant the land with appropriate condition as per the policy of the State Government. If the petitioner was not agreeable to any of the condition of re-grant, there was no compulsion and even today also there is no compulsion on the part of the original petitioner to get back the land on the condition imposed while re-granting the land. On one hand the petitioner – land owner wants to get back the most prestigious and valuable land and on the other hand wants to get back the land without any condition and as a old tenure land without any restrictions whereby there shall be a loss of approximately Rs.5 Crores to the State Government. 6.6 Now, so far as the other reliefs sought in the Special Civil Application that the petitioner shall be allotted the final plot under the Town Planning Act of the same measurement/area of survey No.72 is concerned, Shri Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner has stated at the Bar that the petitioner does not press the said relief and even the learned Single Judge has not passed any order in favour of the petitioner on the same. He has also stated at the Bar that now so far as the prayer of the petitioner to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the Final Plot which are allotted under the Town Planning Act in lieu of survey No.72 is concerned, the petitioner shall approach the appropriate authority and/or initiate appropriate proceedings before appropriate Court/Forum. 7. He has also stated at the Bar that now so far as the prayer of the petitioner to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the Final Plot which are allotted under the Town Planning Act in lieu of survey No.72 is concerned, the petitioner shall approach the appropriate authority and/or initiate appropriate proceedings before appropriate Court/Forum. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Letters Patent Appeal succeeds. Impugned judgment and order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 7937/2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently the petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 7937/2011 insofar as challenging the order dated 15.04.2004 re-granting the land acquired with conditions more particularly condition No.1 is hereby dismissed. Meaning thereby the land which has been re-granted shall be continued as new tenure land and restricted land which was prevailing at the time when the land was originally acquired. Present Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.