JUDGMENT : B.M. Trivedi, J. 1. The petitioner, by way of present petition, seeks to challenge the 11.10.2011 (Annexure 'G'), passed by the respondent No. 2 - Collector, whereby the application of the petitioner seeking non-agricultural use permission has been rejected on the ground that the land in question being Survey No. 362 paiki 1 admeasuring 1838 sq. mtrs. was declared as an excess vacant land, and the possession thereof has been taken over by the Government on 17.11.1988. The petitioner has also sought declaration to the effect that the subject land in question had not vested in the Government, and further sought direction against the respondent No. 2 to grant NA permission to the petitioner in respect of the said land. 2. It is case of the petitioner inter alia that the land in question bearing Survey No. 362 paiki (T.P. 23 and Final Plot No. 22) situated at Village Tandalja, District Vadodara belonged to one Dahyabhai Ranchhodbhai and Babarbhai Ranchhodbhai. The said Babarbhai had filled in the form under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), his holdings including the land in question bearing 362 paiki. The competent authority and Deputy Collector, having processed the said form, had declared the land admeasuring 1838 sq. mtrs. out of the said land as the excess vacant land granting one unit to the said Babarbhai, vide the order dated 18.09.1986 (Annexure 'A'). The son of said Babarbhai i.e. Ramsing Babarbhai having challenged the said order passed by the competent authority, by filing an appeal being No. 52 of 1992 before the Urban Land Tribunal, the said appeal came to be partly allowed, whereby the Tribunal held that the said Ramsingbhai son of Babarbhai was also entitled to one separate unit, and further held that the said Babarbhai held land admeasuring 338 sq. mtrs. only as the excess vacant land and not 1838 sq. mtrs., vide the order dated 30.10.1992 (Annexure 'A-1'). It appears that the State had challenged the said order passed by the Tribunal by filing Special Civil Application No. 80 of 1996 before this Court. The said petition came to be disposed of by this Court by passing following order on 04.08.1999:- "1. This petition arises from orders passed under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. 2. The said petition came to be disposed of by this Court by passing following order on 04.08.1999:- "1. This petition arises from orders passed under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. 2. It is common ground on both sides that the State of Gujarat adopted the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 on 30th March 1999. 3. It is also common ground on both sides that by virtue of section 4of the Repeal Act, all proceedings pending on the said date shall abate. 4. It is so found and accordingly held, and the present petition is disposed of accordingly. 5. Learned AGP states on instructions that the State of Gujarat will abide by the Circular issued by the State Government in the Revenue Department No. ULC/1099-602/V1 dated 15th April 1999. 6. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief if any stands vacated." 3. It further appears that thereafter the present petitioner purchased the land admeasuring 1500 sq. mtrs. out of the said survey No. 362 paiki, from the said Ramsingbhai through the registered sale deed on 17.03.2005. On the strength of the said sale deed, the entry being No. 3309 came to be mutated in the revenue record in favour of the petitioner on 28.04.2005, and the said entry was also certified by the competent authority. The petitioner, thereafter, made an application on 16.03.2011 to the Collector seeking permission to use the said land for non-agricultural purpose under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Code'). The said application has been rejected by the Collector vide the impugned order dated 11.10.2011 (Annexure 'G'). It further appears that on 19.11.2011, the respondent No. 1 wrote a letter directing the respondent No. 2 inter alia to put up a notice board over the land in question stating that the land was belonged to the State Government. The petitioner, therefore, had filed a Civil Application being No. 2086 of 2012 in the present petition seeking directions against the concerned respondent to remove the said notice board, which was granted by the Court as per the order dated 27.03.2012, and the said notice board was removed by the respondent. The petitioner, therefore, had filed a Civil Application being No. 2086 of 2012 in the present petition seeking directions against the concerned respondent to remove the said notice board, which was granted by the Court as per the order dated 27.03.2012, and the said notice board was removed by the respondent. It further appears that thereafter one Civil Application being No. 12948 of 2012 came to be filed by one Mohammed Israrkhan Asgarkhan Pathan for impleading him as party respondent No. 4 in the present petition, which was granted by the Court vide order dated 03.02.2014. 4. It also appears that initially the respondents had not filed any reply, however, when the petitioner filed the Civil Application being No. 2086 of 2012 seeking directions to remove the notice board, and restore the possession of the land in question, the respondent No. 3 - competent authority had filed the reply in the said civil application, which was treated as the reply in the petition. It has been contended therein inter alia that the actual physical possession of the land in question was already taken over by the respondent authorities way back in the year 1988, and thereafter, the Tribunal had modified the order passed by the competent authority. According to the said respondents, after the order passed by the Tribunal declaring 338 sq. mtrs. of land as surplus land, the modified notification under Section 10(1) was issued in August, 1993, however, the same was not published, but in any case, the possession of the land was not released by the State Government, and therefore, the possession had remained with the State Government only. 5. The learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the competent authority was already modified by the Tribunal, and only land admeasuring 338 sq. mtrs. out of the 1838 sq. mtrs. was declared as the excess vacant land, however, the respondent - Collector had wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner seeking NA permission on the ground that the land admeasuring 1838 sq. mtrs. out of the survey No. 362 paiki was the excess vacant land, and the possession thereof, was with the Government. According to Mr. Majmudar, the respondent - Collector had failed to take into consideration the order passed by the Tribunal, and the subsequent order passed by this Court in the Special Civil Application No. 80 of 1996. mtrs. out of the survey No. 362 paiki was the excess vacant land, and the possession thereof, was with the Government. According to Mr. Majmudar, the respondent - Collector had failed to take into consideration the order passed by the Tribunal, and the subsequent order passed by this Court in the Special Civil Application No. 80 of 1996. He has relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Alkaben Nareshbhai Patel Thro 'POA Vinodbhai B Thummar and Others versus the State of Gujarat and Others passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2690 of 2010 decided on 17.11.2011, to submit that when the order of vesting the land in the State Government has been set aside by the Tribunal, and the writ petition filed against the order of Tribunal had stood abated, even if the possession was taken over by the State Government pursuant to the order of vesting, it was the duty of the State Government to return the possession to the subsequent purchaser, who was the lawful owner of the land. The learned advocate Mr. Hakim appearing for the subsequently added respondent No. 4, has submitted that though the said respondent No. 4 has filed the civil suit before the Civil Court seeking cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, he supports the contention raised by the learned advocate Mr. Majmudar so far as the possession of the land in question is concerned. According to him, the proceedings under the ULC Act having stood abated, the State Government could not have retained the possession of the land declared as excess vacant land by the competent authority. 6. However, the learned AGP Mr. Patel appearing for the respondent No. 1 relying upon the affidavit filed by the respondent - competent authority submitted that the possession of the land in question having already been taken over by the State Government way back in 1988, the owner could not have sold the said land to the present petitioner, and the present petitioner could not have asked for the NA permission in respect of the said land. He also submitted that after the passing of the order by the Tribunal, though the modified notification under Section 10(1) was issued in August 1993, the same was not published in the official gazette, and therefore, the possession of the land had remained with the State Government only. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties, and to documents on record, it appears that though the competent authority had passed the order on 18.09.1986, that the land admeasuring 1838 sq. mtrs. was excess vacant land out of the survey No. 362 paiki, the said order was modified by the Urban Land Tribunal vide the order dated 30.10.1992, in the appeal filed by the Ramsingbhai son of Babarbhai, whereby the land admeasuring 338 sq. mtrs. instead of 1838 sq. mtrs. was declared as the excess vacant land. It further appears that in the meantime, the possession of the land declared as excess vacant out of the said survey number was taken over by the State Government in the year 1988. After the Tribunal modified the said order of competent authority, the modified notification was issued under Section 10(1) of the said Act, however, the said notification had remained to be published in the official gazette. Now, it is pertinent to note that pending the Special Civil Application No. 80 of 1996, preferred by the State Government, challenging the order of Tribunal, the said Act came to be repealed, and therefore, the said petition was disposed of vide the order dated 04.08.1999 as stated herein above. As transpiring from the said order of High Court, both the sides had submitted that the proceedings under the said Act had abated by virtue of the Section 4 of the Repeal Act, and the Court also having found that the proceedings had stood so abated, had disposed of the petition. When it was sought to be submitted on behalf of the State Government at the time of the hearing of the petition that the proceedings had stood abated by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, meaning thereby, even according to the State Government, the possession was not with the State Government, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent - Collector to say in the impugned order that the possession was with the Government. 8. 8. It appears that after the disposal of the said petition, the present petitioner had purchased the land in question from the original owner, who had executed the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 17.03.2005, and the entry being No. 3309 was also mutated in favour of the petitioner on 28.04.2005. At this juncture, it is required to be reproduced the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Alkaben Nareshbhai Patel Thro'POA Vinodbhai B Thummar and Others versus the State of Gujarat and Others (supra), relied upon by the learned advocate Mr. Majmudar, in which the Division Bench dealing with the similar situation as in the present petition, had observed as under:- "From the above materials on record, we find that the order of vesting had been set-aside by the Tribunal below by order dated 16th May 1995 and in the writ application filed by the State although an interim order was passed staying the operation of the order of the Tribunal, the moment the said writ application stood abated, the interim order also stood vacated and, therefore, even if possession was taken by the State pursuant to the order of vesting, it was its duty to return the possession to the subsequent purchaser and recognize the subsequent purchaser as the lawful owner of the property." 9. In light of the afore stated observations, the Court has no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal having modified the order passed by the competent authority, and the special civil application filed by the State Government against the order passed by the Tribunal, having been disposed of on the ground that it had stood abated by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, the order passed by the Tribunal had become final, and the same was required to be implemented. In view of the afore stated observations made by the Division Bench, the possession of the land in question could not be construed as that of the State Government, and therefore, the respondent - Collector could not have rejected the application of the petitioner, who is the subsequent purchaser, seeking NA permission in respect of the land in question, on the ground that Government had taken over the possession of the land admeasuring 1838 sq. mtrs, out of the Survey No. 362 paiki on 17.11.1988. mtrs, out of the Survey No. 362 paiki on 17.11.1988. It clearly transpires from the impugned order dated 11.10.2011 (Annexure 'G') that the respondent - Collector had not taken into consideration the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the order passed by the High Court in the Special Civil Application No. 80 of 1996. The said order having been passed by the Collector without proper verification of the record, and that without application of mind, the same deserves to be set aside. 10. In that view of the matter, the order dated 11.10.2011 passed by the respondent No. 2 - Collector is hereby set aside. The Collector is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner dated 16.03.2011 seeking NA permission in respect of the land in question and decide the same in accordance with law. 11. The petition stands partly allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.