JUDGMENT/ORDER : P.P. Bhatt, J. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with following main prayers in para 24 : "(AA) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent no. 3 to permit the petitioners to construct the houses and also issue direction to the respondent no. 3 to sanction the plans of the petitioners for construction of housing society as per the T. P. Scheme of Anjar (Kutch) and G.D.C.R as and when submitted before the respondent no. 3. (B) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the communication dated 03.04.2012 and 10.07.2012 issued by the respondent No. 2 - Collector, Kutch in the interest of justice and allow this petition; (C) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents, their agents and servants to issue order for allotting the land to the petitioners on ownership basis as per the G.R. dtd. 08.08.2001 (Annexure 'F') and accept the payment of premium of Rs. 7,73,12,315/- for the land which is situated at Anjar as per the premium fixed by the Committee constituted by the Government for the reasons stated in the Memo of Petition and in the interest of justice." 2. Facts, necessary for adjudication of the present petition, are as follow : 2.1 The land bearing Survey No. 11, Anjar City Sheet No. 38, Chalta No. CN 3361 admeasuring 40 acres (120 Vighas) situated at Anjar District: Kutch was given to one Jadavji Hansraj by the former State of Kutch by an agreement dated 30.03.1935. Jadavji Hansraj was running Anjar Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. on the said land. Jadavji Hansraj transferred all his rights, title and interest in the said Anjar Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. including the land to one Somchand Shankarlal by a registered deed dated 31.03.1943 and note of registration made by the Registrar shows that the registration fees of 1/2% has been levied in accordance with the Farman (Order) bearing No. 4526 of His Highness Maharao of Kutch dated 31.05.1943. 2.2 Said Shri Somchand Shankarlal, by a deed dated 04.06.1947, sold his rights, title and interest including Anjar Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. to one Premchand Vrajlal Shah. 2.2 Said Shri Somchand Shankarlal, by a deed dated 04.06.1947, sold his rights, title and interest including Anjar Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. to one Premchand Vrajlal Shah. A Memorandum dated 18.03.1947 was issued by Diwan of Kutch notifying that the Government has recognized said Premchand Vrajlal Shah as sole Proprietor of Anjar Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. 2.3 The former State of Kutch merged with the Union of India in 1949 and on commencement of Constitution of India on 26.01.1950, Kutch became Part "C" State of the Union of India and then Kutch became part of Bilingual State of Bombay on 01.11.1956. Thereafter, on 01.05.1960, on formation of the State of Gujarat, Kutch became the part of the State of Gujarat. On death of Premchand Vrajlal Shah, said property vested in his widow - Valuben Premchand Shah, who transferred the said property by way of gift to one Gulabchand Devraj Shah on 29.07.1969. Gulabchand Devraj Shah expired on 21.10.1995 and present petitioners are legal representatives of late Gulabchand Devraj Shah. 2.4 The City Survey Officer after considering the evidence on on record, by order dated 25.07.1977 held that in the revenue record, land stands in the name of late Gulabchand Devraj Shah and Rs. 400/- were being paid by him as rent. He has further held that in view of the deed dated 04.06.1947 executed between Somchand Shankarlal and Premchand Vrajlal, the land is given as an owner and accordingly, the name of late Gulabchand Devraj Shah was entered in the City Survey record as permanent lessee. By virtue of the said order, the right, title and interest of late Gulabchand Devraj Shah was concluded and on his demise, the present petitioners being legal heirs are the owners of the said land. 2.5 After a lapse of about 12 years from the date of order of City Survey Officer, respondent No. 2 issued show cause notice dated 24.07.1989 under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 inter alia alleging breach of condition and non-renewal of lease. Late Gulabchand Devraj Shah replied the said show cause notice inter alia stating that he became the owner of the land by virtue of gift deed dated 26.06.1969 and that the Former Government of Kutch has accepted and recognized Premchand Vrajlal Shah as sole proprietor. Late Gulabchand Devraj Shah replied the said show cause notice inter alia stating that he became the owner of the land by virtue of gift deed dated 26.06.1969 and that the Former Government of Kutch has accepted and recognized Premchand Vrajlal Shah as sole proprietor. Assignment made by Jadavji Hansraj in favour of Somchand Shankarlal was registered deed and registration was made in pursuance to the order made by Maharao of Kutch. On application of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 late Gulabchand Devraj Shah became owner. In reply, late Gulabchand Devraj Shah has also raised issue of delay of 12 years and jurisdiction. 2.6 Thereafter, respondent No. 2, vide order dated 19.01.1990, set aside the order dated 25.07.1977 passed by the City Survey Officer and ordered to enter the land in the name of the State Government. Being aggrieved by the said order, late Gulabchand Devraj Shah preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 1, which was rejected vide order dated 26.11.1990 and communicated to late Gulabchand Devraj Shah vide letter dated 02.05.1991. Against the said order, late Gulabchand Devraj Shah preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6593 of 1991 before this Court, wherein, learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 30.12.1999, while allowing the petition, quash and set aside the of the Collector and Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department. Against the said judgment and order dated 30.12.1999, respondent No. 1 State Government preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001. During the pendency of the said Letters Patent Appeal, State Government issued one Resolution dated 08.08.2001 regarding granting of leasehold land on ownership basis to the persons holding permanent lease. In view of the said Resolution, petitioners made an application dated 02.06.2003 before the respondent No. 1 for regularization of the land. After due verification and perusal of report submitted by the City Survey Officer, Anjar, the Collector, Kutch, by letter dated 03.06.2004 addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, stated that since the petitioners are ready to pay premium at the prevailing rate, State Government may withdraw the Letters Patent Appeal and to allot the land to the petitioners on payment of premium. Then after two years, the State Government, by letter dated 02.05.2006, informed the Collector, Kutch to send proposal along with premium amount. Then after two years, the State Government, by letter dated 02.05.2006, informed the Collector, Kutch to send proposal along with premium amount. The Deputy Collector, Anjar, by letter dated 27.02.2007, gave positive opinion for allotment of land on the basis of the report dated 25.01.2007 submitted by the City Survey Officer. Thereafter, for fixing of premium, a Committee, consisting of Collector as Chairman, DDO and Town Planning Officers and Resident Collector as Members was constituted and premium was fixed at Rs. 7,73,12,315/-. Thereafter, Collector, Kutch submitted report dated 20.05.2008 of the Price Fixation Committee to Respondent No. 1. Revenue department sought opinion of Legal Department regarding pendency of Letters Patent Appeal and Legal Department opined to the Government that before passing order, Letters Patent Appeal may be withdrawn. Accordingly, the Government requests the Court to grant permission for withdrawal of Letters Patent Appeal, but, vide order dated 01.10.2009, the Court directed the Government to file affidavit pointing out as to why the Government wants to withdraw the appeal. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit was filed by the Government stating that in view of the Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001, the Government decided to give the land to the petitioners on ownership basis to the petitioner. Considering the said affidavit, vide order dated 23.11.2009, the Court permitted the Government to withdraw the Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001. After withdrawal of the said Letters Patent Appeal, petitioners made several applications, but, no decision was taken by the Government. Thereafter, petitioners received the letter dated 03.04.2012 from the Collector, Kutch regarding re-fixation of premium of the land, which replied by the petitioners vide letter dated 16.05.2012. Thereafter, once again Collector, Kutch wrote a letter dated 10.07.2012 raising certain queries and obtaining consent of the petitioners for payment of premium. Hence, the present petition is filed against the impugned communications dated 03.04.2012 and 10.07.2012 and issuance of direction to the Government authorities for allotment of land on ownership basis on payment of premium as fixed by the Price Fixation Committee constituted by the Government. 3. Heard, Mr. A. R. Thacker, the learned advocate for the petitioners, and Mr. J. K. Shah, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 3. Heard, Mr. A. R. Thacker, the learned advocate for the petitioners, and Mr. J. K. Shah, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 3.1 The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that on perusal of the affidavit-in-reply dated 25.04.2012 filed by the Government and Affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 01.12.2013 filed by the petitioners to the said affidavit-in-reply and after hearing both the parties, the coordinate Bench of this Court, has, while admitting the present petition, granted interim relief of status quo with respect to the land in dispute. The learned advocate further submitted that flouting the order of status quo, the respondent No. 2 - Collector, Kutch issued directions to the City Survey Officer on 14.04.2015 under Section 135-D of the Code. He further submitted that the land in question is not agricultural land and the same has been allotted for industrial purpose and Spinning and Weaving Mills in the name of M/s. Anjar Spinning and Weaving Mills was running on the said land. He submitted that in the year 1935, the said land was granted by the State of Kutch on permanent leasehold rights with running Spinning and Weaving Mills. Besides, this Court, vide judgment and order dated 30.12.1999 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6593 of 1991, while quashing and setting aside the order No. Land:Vashi:1366/89 dated 19-29.01.1990 passed by the Collector and the order dated 26.11.190 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department and confirming the order dated 25.07.1977 passed by the City Survey Officer holding the petitioners as a permanent lease holder and to enter his name in the records to make necessary amendments in the map, confirmed the permanent leasehold rights of the petitioners over the disputed land. He submitted that Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001 filed against the said judgment and order dated 30.12.1999 has been withdrawn by the Government as during the pendency of appeal, the Government issued Resolution dated 08.08.2001 to grant the leasehold lands to the permanent lessee on payment of premium amount. The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, the Government constituted a committee consisting of Collector as Chairman, DDO and Town Planning Officers and Resident Collector as members. In the year 2007, the said Committee fixed the premium at Rs. 7,73,12,315/- towards the land in question. The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, the Government constituted a committee consisting of Collector as Chairman, DDO and Town Planning Officers and Resident Collector as members. In the year 2007, the said Committee fixed the premium at Rs. 7,73,12,315/- towards the land in question. The District Valuation Committee fixed the valuation of the land and forwarded the same to the Government on 27.08.2007. 3.2 The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the State Government accepted the proposal on 31.07.2008 but due to pendency of Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001, opinion of Legal Department was sought and on the basis of the opinion of the Legal Department, Government took a decision to withdraw the Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001 challenging the judgment and order dated 30.12.1999. However, while learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State, sought permission of the Court for withdrawal of the appeal, it was directed to file affidavit of responsible officer explaining the circumstances under which the State Government was intending to withdraw the appeal. In pursuance to such direction, Shri D. K. Baria, Under Secretary, filed affidavit. The learned advocate for the petitioners, while drawing attention of the Court to para 7 of the said affidavit, submitted that in the said para, the deponent has, on oath, clearly stated that "as final decision of regularization/allotting the land was taken there was no question of continuing/perusing LPA hence, proposal for withdrawal of the same was moved. The Hon'ble Minister on 31.07.2008 has approved the proposal as a part formality, approved the proposal of the Hon'ble Minister, Revenue Department the proposal for withdrawal of LPA being the local proceeding was to be sent to the Legal Department. The same was carried out untimely the Legal Department has sanction the withdrawal and that has promoted the withdrawal of the appeal". Thereafter, on 23.11.2009, the Division Bench permitted the State Government to withdraw the LPA. Accordingly, judgment and order dated 30.12.1999 passed by the single Judge has attained finality. 3.3 The learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted that in view of the Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001, the Government has withdrawn the Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001, therefore, the judgment and order dated 30.12.1999 attains finality. Accordingly, judgment and order dated 30.12.1999 passed by the single Judge has attained finality. 3.3 The learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted that in view of the Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001, the Government has withdrawn the Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001, therefore, the judgment and order dated 30.12.1999 attains finality. Moreover, as the Committee constituted by the Government has once fixed premium in the year 2007, the Government cannot re-fix the premium in the year 2012 in pursuance to the Government Resolutions dated 04.07.2008 and 26.04.2011. The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that Government Resolutions dated 04.07.2008 and 26.04.2011 are applicable in the cases for disposal of Government land. Government Resolution dated 04.07.2008 was issued under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is not applicable to Kutch Distric. So far as Kutch District is concerned, during Bombay Government when the entire Gujarat State under the Bombay State, Bombay Government passed the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1958 (Kutch Area), and therefore, said Government Resolution dated 04.07.2008 is not applicable to the Kutch District. The learned advocate further submitted that the land in question is not agricultural land but non-agricultural land allotted by the Ex-Ruler of Kutch in the year 1935 for the purpose of industries in the City of Anjar. Therefore, also said Government Resolution is not applicable to the land in question. Moreover, said Government Resolution applicable to the Government lands for disposal, whereas, the disputed land is not a Government land. Permanent leasehold of the disputed land is confirmed by the coordinate bench of this Court in favour of the petitioners and therefore, the same cannot be said to be a Government land as the ownership and possession of the land is with the present petitioners since 1969 by virtue of Gift Deed dated 29.07.1969. The learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted that prior to withdrawal of Letters Patent Appeal and during the pendency of the said Letters Patent Appeal, District Level Valuation Committee has fixed the premium, which was accepted by the Hon'ble Minister at the relevant time, but due to pendency of Letters Patent Appeal, the same could not be acted upon. The learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted that prior to withdrawal of Letters Patent Appeal and during the pendency of the said Letters Patent Appeal, District Level Valuation Committee has fixed the premium, which was accepted by the Hon'ble Minister at the relevant time, but due to pendency of Letters Patent Appeal, the same could not be acted upon. The petitioners also made application to the Government on 30.06.2008 and time and again approached the concerned authorities to finalize the matter but no response was given. Thereafter, in contradiction to the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Minister, the respondent authorities have issued letters dated 03.04.2012 and 10.07.2012 regarding re-fixation of 100% premium of prevailing market value, which is contrary to law, illegal and unconstitutional. 3.4 The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that recently the Government has issued another Government Resolution on 22.05.2018 considering the Government Resolutions dated 22.11.2004 and 26.04.2011 and issued new guidelines for fixing the price of the land, whereby, it is specifically observed by the Government that price fixed on the basis of above two Government Resolution dated 11.02.2004, 22.11.2004 and 26.04.2011 was fixed very much on the higher side and since, the same remains on papers only and nobody comes forward to make payment of the price fixed by the Valuation Committee, new Resolution (dated 22.05.2018) is published whereby, the rate of interest is reduced from 12% to 8% for non-payment of price. 3.5 Making above submissions, it is urged that the present petition may be allowed as prayed for. 4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State authorities, while opposing the present petition, submitted that the present petition is filed challenging the communications dated 03.04.2012 and 10.07.2012 issued by the respondent No. 2 - Collector, Kutch. The petitioners have also prayed for direction against the respondent No. - 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Anjar Area Development Authority to sanction the plans of the petitioners for construction of housing society as per the T.P. Scheme and General Development Control Regulation. 4.1 The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that grounds viz. The petitioners have also prayed for direction against the respondent No. - 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Anjar Area Development Authority to sanction the plans of the petitioners for construction of housing society as per the T.P. Scheme and General Development Control Regulation. 4.1 The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that grounds viz. (i) once the premium has been fixed, it is impermissible for the State to change the same; (ii) necessary application was made but due to lethargy on the part of the concerned State authorities, no order was passed despite the fact that, every required procedure was completed; (iii) the delay is caused on account of inaction in the part of the respondent authorities and that the petitioners are made to suffer and thereby causing immense prejudice and hardship; (iv) the decision with regard to the premium was already taken by the State Government after considering the premium amount fixed by the Committee constituted by the respondents and that the petitioners have already accepted the premium fixed by the Committee and communicated to the said authorities, are vague, not supported or substantiated by any documentary evidence and thus, on this ground alone, the petition deserves to be dismissed in as much as it is well settled principle of law that any party, alleging lethargy or any inaction, it is incumbent upon such party to not only plead but should also to prove the statement with accurate and detailed acts supported by the documents. Besides, the stand of the petitioners itself is contradictory inasmuch as, the petitioners, on one hand claimed that the decision was already taken for fixing the premium and on the other hand, the petitioners alleging inaction on the part of State Government to the effect that no orders were passed despite the fact that required procedure was completed. 4.2 The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, the petition, even otherwise, does not deserve to be entertained on the following amongst other grounds : (a) That, if the petitioners are desirous to getting the land converted from new tenure to old tenure, the petitioners are obliged to fulfill all the requirements laid down in the Government Resolutions issued by the State Government governing the conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure. (b) That the orders/communications dated 03.04.2012 and 10.07.2012, issued by the Collector, are nothing but the communications and/or orders in furtherance of the steps taken for the purpose of regularization of the land in question, converting from new tenure to old tenure. (c) That the petitioners cannot be allowed to circumvent the procedure contemplated under the aforesaid Government Resolutions and/or policies of the State Government and more particularly, the procedure making it incumbent upon the petitioners to make the payment of 100% premium to be determined on the basis of prevalent market value. (d) That the petitioners being the lessee of the land in question, cannot, as a matter of fact, insist that the petitioners' will not pay the outstanding rent along with the interest since the year 1967. 4.3 The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioners, in first round of litigation, had challenged the order dated 19/20.01.1990 and 26.11.1990 passed by the Collector, Kutch and Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department respectively, whereby the land in question was ordered to be vested in the State Government. This Court, vide judgment and order dated 30.12.1999, allowed the said writ petition filed by the petitioners by quashing and setting aside the aforesaid orders and confirmed the order dated 26.07.1977 passed by the City Survey Superintendent, Anjar, whereby, the City Survey Superintendent declared the forefather of the petitioners as permanent leaseholders. As admitted by the petitioners, petitioners are not owner of the land in question but only possessing leasehold rights by virtue of Gift Deed dated 29.07.1969. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that State Government preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001. In the interregnum, the Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001 was issued making provisions for regularization of leasehold rights by converting land from new tenure to old tenure subject to the applicant's paying 100% premium at the prevalent market price. The case of the petitioners was under consideration and the proposal was moved inter departmental and intra departmental for the purpose of taking a decision to regularize the leasehold right subject to petitioners paying 100% premium at the prevalent market price in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001. Owing to the aforesaid development, State Government thought it fit to withdraw the appeal and accordingly, this Court, vide order dated 23.11.2009, was kind enough to permit the State Government to withdraw the appeal. Owing to the aforesaid development, State Government thought it fit to withdraw the appeal and accordingly, this Court, vide order dated 23.11.2009, was kind enough to permit the State Government to withdraw the appeal. 4.4 The learned Assistant Government Pleader further states that during the pendency of the appeal, the process of valuation of land in question was undertaken by the District Valuation committee, which consumed some time. By the time, the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of on 23.11.2009, validity period of the valuation of the land in question got elapsed and hence, as per the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 11.02.2004 and 22.11.2004, it was obligatory upon the State Government to redetermine the market value of the land in question for the purpose of conversion from new tenure to old tenure. Accordingly, vide letter dated 05.03.2010, Revenue Department requested the Collector, Kutch to get the valuation of the land in question by the District Valuation Committee and send proposal within a period of 15 days. The Collector submitted a detailed report dated 13.04.2012 inter alia informing that the District Land Valuation Committee has vide its report dated 27.03.2012 determined the value of the land in question at the rate of Rs. 19,200/- per sq. mtrs. and the same was to the tune of Rs. 2,88,23,37,600/-. Simultaneously, the office of the Collector, addressed a letter to the petitioners, inter alia informing that in view of the complaint received by one Mr. Prajapati, the same was (complaint) requires to be investigated and necessary steps were required to be taken for the purpose of re-determination of the value of the land in question. Since the value of the land in question as determined by the District Land Valuation committee was above Rs. 50 lakh, the Revenue Department, in tune with the Government Resolution dated 15.01.1998, vide letter dated 13.06.2012, requested the Chief Town Planner, Town Planning & Valuation Department, Gandhinagar for his opinion. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that from the record, it revealed that the petitioners and their ancestors have not paid the lease rent since the year 1969 and thus, amongst other things, the office of the Collector vide letter dated 10.07.2012 directed the petitioners to make the payment of lease rent along with interest. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that from the record, it revealed that the petitioners and their ancestors have not paid the lease rent since the year 1969 and thus, amongst other things, the office of the Collector vide letter dated 10.07.2012 directed the petitioners to make the payment of lease rent along with interest. 4.5 So far as policies governing conversion of land from new tenure to old tenure, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the State Government, in exercise of executive powers, has issued Government Resolution dated 11.02.2004 providing for validity period of the valuation for one year followed by Government Resolution dated 22.11.2004 providing for 12% rise every year and if the valuation exceeds Rs. 50 lakh, the same should be referred to the State Government. The aforesaid two Government Resolutions were followed by issuance of Government Resolution dated 26.11.2004 inter alia providing that if during the period of two years, the valuation of the land determined by the District Valuation Committee is not approved by the State Government, the same should be re determined as per the prevalent market price. Thus, the State Government obliged to take decision in tune with the provisions contained in the aforesaid Government Resolution issued from time to time. Any decision de hors the provisions of the Government Resolutions would tantamount to rewrite the provisions of the said Government Resolutions. 4.6 In support of his contentions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Census Commissioner Vs. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that, 'interference with the policy decision and to issue a writ of mandamus to frame a policy in a particular manner are absolute different'. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that, 'it is impermissible for the High Court to issue directions de hors the provisions of the policies framed by the State Government and that to issue directions de hors the policies would amount to issuing directions for framing the policy in a specific manner, which is totally impermissible'. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that, 'it is impermissible for the High Court to issue directions de hors the provisions of the policies framed by the State Government and that to issue directions de hors the policies would amount to issuing directions for framing the policy in a specific manner, which is totally impermissible'. 4.7 So far as the opinions and/or suggestions expressed on file vis-a-vis accrual of vested right in favour of the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that If some opinion and/or suggestions have been expressed on file by any officer of the Department and/or Minister, the same would not confer any vested right in favour of the petitioners unless the same has been communicated to the petitioners as provided under the Rules of Business which is sine qua non for any right to have been accrued in favour of the petitioners. The Hon'ble Apex court has categorically held in catena of decisions that, 'an opinion and/or suggestions of any officer and/or Minister or council of Ministers becomes the decision of the Government only when it is communicated to the person concerned'. In support of his submission, learned Assistant Government Pleader referred and relied upon para 18 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kipalu Shanker, (1987) 3 SCC 34 , which reads as under : "18. This Court observed in this judgment that business of State is a complicated one and has necessarily to be conducted through the agency of a large number of officials and authorities. Before action is taken by the authority concerned in the name of the Rajpramukh which formality is a constitutional necessity, nothing done would amount to an order creating rights or casting liabilities on the parties. It is possible, observed this Court, that after expressing one opinion about a particular matter at a particular stage a Minister or Council of Ministers may express quite a different opinion which may be opposed to the earlier opinion. In such cases, which of the two, opinion can be regarded as the order of the State Government? It was held that an opinion becomes a decision of the Government only when it must be communicated to the person concerned and that this is the essence of the matter. In such cases, which of the two, opinion can be regarded as the order of the State Government? It was held that an opinion becomes a decision of the Government only when it must be communicated to the person concerned and that this is the essence of the matter. We seek support from these observations for our purpose that nothing in a notes files, not only of officers but even that of a Minister will not constitute an order to affect others unless it is done in accordance with Article 166(1) and (2) and communicated to the person concerned." 4.8 The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that pertinently, in the present case, no final decision has been communicated to the petitioners either way and thus, in absence of there being any communication of a final decision to the petitioners, no right of whatsoever nature can be said to have been accrued in favour of the petitioners so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ in the nature of mandamus against the State Government. Presently, no right can be said to have been accrued in favour of the petitioners vis-a-vis the corresponding duty on the part of the State Government to perform. In absence of there being any accrued or vested right in favour of the petitioners, the present petition seeking issuance of writ of mandamus may not be entertained by this Court in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Director of Settlements, A.P. Vs. M.R. Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 628 , more particularly, in para - 17 of the same. 4.9 The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that referring to the fixation of the price of premium and payment thereof for the purpose of regularization, the issue is no longer res integra in principle in view of the judgment dated 03.05.2011 rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 10548 of 2008 and other connected writ petitions in the matter of Patel Kamalbhai Sharadbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others. State of Gujarat and Others. This Court, while dealing with the validity of the provisions of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as well as the Government Resolutions dated 04.07.2008, more particularly, the issue as regards the date for determination of the premium amount, while upholding the validity of Section 43 of the aforesaid Act as well as the Government Resolutions dated 04.07.2008, observed that, 'the crucial date for determination of the premium is the date on which the Collector grants such permission i.e. prospective date and not retrospective date'. The aforesaid observation precisely applies in the present case and thus, the action of the State Government, re-determining the amount of premium to be paid for the purpose of conversion from new tenure to old tenure, is in right earnest and in tune with the policies of the State Government. The aforesaid decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 10548 of 2008 and other connected matters has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2014) 5 SCC 199 . Pertinently, the principles laid down by this Hon'ble Court is confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai is a general principle and not act specific principle. 4.10 While concluding his submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader states that in view of the aforesaid position and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, present petition deserves to be dismissed with cost. 5. In rejoinder to the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that initially the land in question was allotted to M/s. Jadavji Hansraj for running Ginning, Pressing & Weaving Mills for industrial purpose by the erstwhile Ruler of State of Kutch in the year 1935. Then, after obtaining permission from the erstwhile Ruler of State of Kutch, M/s. Jadavji Hansraj, Director of M/s. Anjar Spinning & Weaving Mills and after passing resolution of the Board, sold the land in question along with M/s. Anjar Spinning and Weaving Mills to one Somchand Shankarlal by executing registered sale deed dated 31.03.1943. In the said registered sale deed, it is clearly mentioned that the right of the assignee of said Somchand Shankarlal is till eternity i.e. till the Sun and the Moon shine. In the said registered sale deed, it is clearly mentioned that the right of the assignee of said Somchand Shankarlal is till eternity i.e. till the Sun and the Moon shine. Thereafter, on 04.06.1947, said Somchand Shankarlal sold his rights in favour of Premchand Vrajlal Shah. In this regard, the Diwan of Kutch State has also endorsed by issuing order dated 18/22.12.1947. Thus, Premchand Vrajlal Shah became sole owner/proprietor of the said land and M/s. Anjar Spinning and Weaving Mills. On demise of Premchand Vrajlal shah, the said property was held by his widow namely Veluben Premchand shah, who has, by executing Gift Deed dated 29.07.1969, transferred the said property in favour of Gulabchand Devraj Shah. Thus, the said property was owned and possessed by Gulabchand Devraj Shah. On demise of Gulabchand Devraj Shah, present petitioners became owners and possessors of the said property. Therefore, contentions raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petitioners are not the owners of the said land is incorrect. 5.1 With regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai, relied by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that in para 24 of the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex court has directed the State Government to decide such applications within 90 days. In the present case, the application is of the year 2003 and during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State Government, District Valuation Committee fixed premium in 2007 and then Hon'ble Minister approved the said decision on 31.07.2008. These facts are stated on oath by the respondent authorities in Affidavit-in-reply filed before the Division Bench. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable in the present case. While referring the decision rendered in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kipalu Shanker, relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has, in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable in the present case. While referring the decision rendered in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kipalu Shanker, relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has, in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., (2011) 4 GLR 3268 in para 24 held that, 'If the decision is taken by the Minister in-charge of the department of Ministry, it would be decision of the Government of India and observed earlier for the Ministry of Railways, the aforesaid officers have been authorized to sign as the Rules framed under Article 77(2) of the Constitution of India read with the amendment of 1983'. In the present case, earlier premium was fixed by the District Level Valuation Committee, consisting of the Collector as Chairman, DDO and Town Planning Officers as members in the year 2007 and the said decision was approved by the Hon'ble Minister on 31.07.2008, and therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in aforesaid judgment, the decision of the Hon'ble Minister is the decision of the Government. 5.2 The learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted that in the present case order has already passed and the amount is already fixed as per the affidavit filed by Mr. D. K. Baria, Under Secretary, Revenue Department dated 09.09.2009 before the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001, which is binding to the Government and the Government cannot back out from the same. The learned advocate for the petitioners further states that at the time of withdrawal of the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal by the State Government, all the formalities of approval were made right upto the Hon'ble Minister and petitioners were/are ready to pay the price fixed by the District Level Valuation Committee. The State Government failed to perform promises as stated on oath by way of affidavit before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and State Government cannot be allowed to reply on its own lapses in implementing the said decision. In support of his submission, the learned advocate for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and Others Vs. In support of his submission, the learned advocate for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and Others Vs. Kalyanpur Cements Ltd., (2010) 3 SCC 274 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, 'No distinction can be made between the exercise of a sovereign or Governmental function and a trading or business activity of the Government. Whatever be the nature of the function which the Government is discharging, the Government is subject to the rule of the promissory estopples and if the essential ingredients of this rule are satisfied, the Government can be compelled to carry out the promise made by it...'. 5.3 The learned advocate for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners have already paid all the dues towards rents and the assessment of dues by the Government is baseless and without verification of the record as the same is already paid till date and nothing is outstanding. 5.4 While concluding his rejoinder, the learned advocate for the petitioners submits that as once the premium is fixed by the District Level Valuation Committee which was approved by the Hon'ble Minister and due to inaction on the part of the Government, the said decision was not implemented and therefore, for no fault of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer and thereby causing immense prejudice and hardship. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that in view of the above, impugned communications dated 03.04.2017 and 10.07.2017 deserve to be quashed and set aside and the respondent authorities may be directed to accept the premium from the petitioners as fixed by the District Level Valuation Committee and approved by the Hon'ble Minister. 6. Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties and gone through the material on record as well as the decisions relied by both the sides. 6.1 By order dated 26.03.2018, this Court had directed the concerned Department of the State to produce the original record pertaining to the decision taken by the State Government after receipt of the proposal from the District Collector, Kutch in the year 2008, before withdrawal of the Letters Patent Appeal. In response to the said order, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced the original record as directed by this Court. This Court has perused the original record. In response to the said order, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced the original record as directed by this Court. This Court has perused the original record. On perusal of the same, following position emerges : (a) In the year 2003, the petitioners have made application to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, Gandhinagar (received by the Department on 03.06.2003) for conversion of land from new tenure to old tenure on payment of premium as per Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001. (b) In connection with the said application, opinion of the Collector, Kutch was sought for by the department and the Collector, Kutch, vide letter dated 11.12.2003, forwarded his opinion to the Department. However, as the Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001, preferred by the State Government against the judgment and order dated 30.12.1999 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6593 of 1991 was pending, clear opinion was sought from the Collector, Kutch. In response thereto, the Collector, Kutch, vide letter dated 03.06.2004, forwarded his clear opinion that petitioners are having possession of the land as of leasehold right since last 34 years, which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court. That by Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001, the State Government has decided to give the leasehold lands permanently to the holders on payment of 100% market price and as the petitioners were/are ready to pay price as per the Government Policy and as interest of the Government is protected as per the policy, it was recommended to withdraw the Letters Patent Appeal and to regularize the land on payment of premium by the petitioners. However, the Chief Secretary made note that the question of withdrawing the Letters Patent Appeal does not arise. Question challenged in Letters Patent Appeal needs to be decided. Just because the party wants to take advantage of the G.R. of 08.08.2001, Letters Patent Appeal needs not be withdrawn. Expedite the Letters Patent Appeal. (c) Thereafter, petitioners made representation to the Hon'ble Member of Legislative Assembly. The Hon'ble Member of Legislative Assembly, vide letter dated 26.05.2005, requested the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, Government of Gujarat to do the needful in the matter. The office of the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, Government of Gujarat forwarded the same to the department for doing needful. (c) Thereafter, petitioners made representation to the Hon'ble Member of Legislative Assembly. The Hon'ble Member of Legislative Assembly, vide letter dated 26.05.2005, requested the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, Government of Gujarat to do the needful in the matter. The office of the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, Government of Gujarat forwarded the same to the department for doing needful. The Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat, vide letter dated 26.07.2005 informed the Hon'ble Member of Legislative Assembly that as Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001 is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, mater being subjudice, no action can be taken. Only after final decision of the Hon'ble Court, action can be taken. (d) Thereafter, vide letter dated 02.09.2005 addressed to the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, while drawing attention to the reply received from the department, recommended that if the applicants are entitled as per the Resolution, Letters Patent Appeal should be withdrawn so that wastage of Government money and time can be saved and as conversion is to be effected on payment of premium, Government may have income of lakhs of rupees. The petitioners also vide representation dated 01.09.2005, made same request to the Hon'ble Revenue Minister. The office of the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, while forwarding the recommendation to the Department, requested to forward the papers to the Hon'ble Revenue Minister for perusal. In this regard, the petitioners also made representation dated 30.06.2008 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, State of Gujarat, which was forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Revenue Department for taking necessary action. (e) During the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, in response to the letter dated 03.06.2004 of the Collector, Kutch, the Revenue Department, vide letter dated 20.05.2008, requested the Collector, Kutch to forward standard proposal price. The Collector, Kutch vide letter dated 20.05.2008 addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department 'A' Branch, Gandhinagar inter alia stated that panchanama of the land in question has been carried out by the Surveyor the office of the City Survey Superintendent. That, Consent of the petitioners has also been recorded on 29.09.2006 by the City Survey Superintendent and petitioners consented to pay the price as may be determined by the Government for regularization of the land. That, copies of Property Card and the receipts towards payment of the rent by the petitioners are produced. That, Consent of the petitioners has also been recorded on 29.09.2006 by the City Survey Superintendent and petitioners consented to pay the price as may be determined by the Government for regularization of the land. That, copies of Property Card and the receipts towards payment of the rent by the petitioners are produced. That, in the meeting of the District Land Valuation Committee convened on 29.08.2007, prevalent market price of the land is fixed at Rs. 515/- per sq. mtrs. Accordingly, price of the land in question admeasuring 150121 sq. mtrs. (A. 37-04 G) comes to Rs. 7,73,12,315/- (Rupees Seven Crore Seventy Three Lakh Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen Only). That, as per letter dated 14.03.2007 of the Anjar Area Development Authority, in view of the implemented development scheme, land in question falls under the residential zone. As per G.D.C.R. rules, in residential zone, proposed industries is not entitled in residential zone. However, when the said land was allotted for the purpose of Ginning and Pressing Mills on leasehold, there was no development scheme in existence. After earthquake on implementation of development scheme by the Anjar Area Development Authority, land in question falls under residential zone. Therefore, applicants, vide application dated 17.04.2008, requested to allot the land on permanent basis for industrial purpose or residential purpose. (f) The office of the Government Pleader wrote a letter dated 19.12.2008 addressed to the Secretary, Revenue Department 'A' Branch, Gandhinagar inter alia stating that if the department is ready to accept the proposal given by the Collector and final order has been passed by the authorities then Letters Patent Appeal will not survive, but, Letters Patent Appeal cannot be withdrawn. However, the department may file further affidavit in the High Court putting all fresh development and pursuant to that affidavit, request can be made to the Court to dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal accordingly. Thereafter, after obtaining opinion from the Legal Department, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing in the Letters Patent Appeal, requested the Hon'ble Division Bench to grant permission to withdraw the Letters Patent Appeal, however, Hon'ble Division Bench, vide order dated 01.10.2009, directed to file affidavit of responsible officer explaining circumstances under which the State Government intending to withdraw the appeal. Though, appeal was adjourned thrice, instead of filing the affidavit as directed by the Hon'ble Court, repeated requests for withdrawal of appeal was made before the Hon'ble Court. Though, appeal was adjourned thrice, instead of filing the affidavit as directed by the Hon'ble Court, repeated requests for withdrawal of appeal was made before the Hon'ble Court. Lastly on 09.11.2009, while learned Assistant Government Pleader without inviting earlier orders regarding filing of affidavit, sought permission to withdraw appeal, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to adjourned the appeal on 23.11.2009 and directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader to state as to why the request was made without inviting the attention of the Court to earlier orders. Lastly, on 23.11.2009, affidavit affirmed on 09.11.2009 by Mr. D.K. Baria, Under Secretary, Revenue Department was produced before the Hon'ble Court. After perusal of the said affidavit, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant permission to withdraw the appeal in view of the instructions of the State Government vide letter dated 11.09.2009. (g) Thereafter, vide letter dated 05.03.2010, the Section Officer, Revenue Department requested the Collector, Kutch to forward standard proposal within 15 days. Thereafter, reminders dated 08.04.2010, 12.05.2010, 03.07.2010 and 03.12.2011 had been sent to the Collector, Kutch, but no response was received by the Revenue Department. Thereafter, on 13.04.2012, office of the Collector, Kutch addressed a letter to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department 'A' Branch, Gandhinagar inter alia informing about filing of objection application dated 01.10.2011 received from one Mr. Rameshbhai D. Prajapati and fixation of price determined by the District Land Valuation Committee Meeting convened on 27.03.2012. The District Land Valuation Committee had fixed the price at Rs. 19,300/- per sq. mtrs. which comes to Rs. 2,88,23,37,600/- for the total land in question as per the prevalent market price. On the basis of the said letter, impugned communications dated 03.04.2012 and 10.07.2012 have been issued. 7. Regard being had to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State authorities and on perusal of the original record, it appears that after the judgment and order dated 30.12.1999 passed by this Court in Special Civil application No. 6593 of 1991 in favour of the petitioners and in view of the Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001, the petitioners have made application in the year 2003 before the concerned authority for regularization of the land in question on payment of premium as may be determined by the State Government as per Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001. In the meantime, the State Government had preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001 against the judgment and order dated 30.12.1999 passed in Special Civil Application No.6593 of 2001. It further appears that the application made by the petitioners was not proceeded on the ground of pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners made representations to the Hon'ble Member of Legislative Assembly and the Hon'ble Revenue Minister and the Hon'ble Chief Minister. It further appears that as a result of such representations, during the pendency of the appeal, District Land Valuation Committee, in its meeting dated 29.08.2007, fixed the price at Rs. 515/- per sq. mtrs., which comes to Rs. 7,73,12,315/- for the total land in question. The Collector, Kutch, vide letter dated 03.06.2004, while giving his opinion on the application made by the petitioners, opined to withdraw the appeal in view of the Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001 and apprised readiness of the petitioners for payment of premium as may be determined by the Government, however, instead of withdrawing the appeal, the State Government did not take any action on the pretext of pendency of appeal. Even after fixation of price by the District Land Valuation Committee on 29.08.2007, the appeal was not withdrawn. Thereafter, in the year 2009, after obtaining opinion from the Legal Department, the State Government, vide letter dated 11.09.2009, instructed the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing in the appeal to request the Hon'ble Court to grant permission to withdraw the appeal. It further appears that though the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court directed to file affidavit explaining circumstances for withdrawal of appeal, the State Government, at first instance, did not file affidavit and after about five adjournments, affidavit was filed before the Court. It further appears from the record that even after withdrawal of the appeal, instead of proceeding further with earlier fixation of price by the District Land Valuation Committee on 29.08.2007, the State Government initiated proceedings for re-determining the price as per Government Resolution dated 22.11.2004 and 26.11.2004 on the count that the validity of the price fixed on 29.08.2007 got elapsed. 7.1 From the record, it is clear that from time to time, the petitioners have made requests to the respondent authorities to finalize their application made in the year 2003, but, on account of inaction and lenguor on the part of the respondent authorities, price fixed by the District Land Valuation Committee on 29.08.2007 could not be implemented in time. The Collector, Kutch, vide letter dated 03.06.2004, opined that in view of the Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001 and consent of the petitioners to pay the premium as may be determined by the State Government, Letters Patent Appeal should be withdrawn, but, contrary to the State Litigation Policy, respondent authorities took the decision to withdraw the Letters Patent Appeal, after a lapse of five years from the opinion of the Collector, Kutch and after a lapse of nine years from issuance of Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001. On account of the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, though the petitioners were ready and willing to pay the premium as determined by the District Land Valuation Committee, validity of the price fixed by the District Land Valuation Committee on 29.08.2007 got elapsed and the petitioners are made to suffer. In aforesaid view of the matter, following points have been weighed by the Court : (i) by judgment and order dated 30.12.1999 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6593 of 1991 filed by the petitioners, the order dated 25.07.1977 passed by the City Survey Officer, holding the petitioner/s as a permanent lease holders, to enter his name in the record and to make necessary amendment in the map, was affirmed. (ii) Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001, preferred by the State, challenging the aforesaid judgment and order dated 30.12.1999 came to be withdrawn by the State in view of Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001 for transfer of new tenure land to the old tenure land on premium. (iii) the land in question was given by the Ex-Ruler of Kutch in the year 1935 for industrial purpose and is not an agricultural land. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that the land was converted into NA. (iv) the petitioners had made applications/representation time and again for transferring the land in the name of the petitioners and they had/have shown their readiness and willingness to pay the required premium as may be decided the State. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that the land was converted into NA. (iv) the petitioners had made applications/representation time and again for transferring the land in the name of the petitioners and they had/have shown their readiness and willingness to pay the required premium as may be decided the State. (v) accordingly, the meeting of the District Land Valuation Committee convened on 29.08.2007 and prevalent market price of the land is fixed at Rs. 515/- per sq. mtrs. Accordingly, price of the land in question admeasuring 150121 sq. mtrs. (A. 37-04 G) comes to Rs. 7,73,12,315/- (Rupees Seven Crore Seventy Three Lakh Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen Only). (vi) though the price fixed by the Committee of Rs. 7,73,12,315/- was on the higher side at the relevant point of time, the petitioners show/ed their willingness to pay the said price. The copy of letter dated 29.03.2007 of Collector, Kutch, produced by the petitioners, reveals the price of the land in question to be Rs. 54.05 per sq.mtr. as per the extracts of non-agriculture sell and as per the Panchroj, the price of the land in question comes to Rs. 150/- to Rs. 175/-. However, in the case on hand, the price fixed by the Valuation Committee Rs. 515/- per sq.mtr., which the petitioners are ready to pay. (vii) as per letter dated 14.03.2007 of the Anjar Area Development Authority, in view of the implemented development scheme, land in question falls under the residential zone. As per G.D.C.R. rules, in residential zone, proposed industries is not entitled in residential zone. However, when the said land was allotted for the purpose of Ginning and Pressing Mills on leasehold, there was no development scheme in existence. After earthquake on implementation of development scheme by the Anjar Area Development Authority, land in question falls under residential zone. Therefore, applicants, vide application dated 17.04.2008, requested to allot the land on permanent basis for industrial purpose or residential purpose. (viii) the decisions relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader are of no help to the State in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, applicants, vide application dated 17.04.2008, requested to allot the land on permanent basis for industrial purpose or residential purpose. (viii) the decisions relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader are of no help to the State in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In the case on hand, the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001 has taken a policy decision to convert the new tenure land into old tenure land on premium; the said decision came pending the Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001 preferred by the State, as aforesaid; the said Letters Patent Appeal came to be withdrawn in view of the policy decision of the State Government which is reflected in Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001 consequent thereto, the Letters Patent Appeal came to be withdrawn. Moreover, the opinion of the Hon'ble Minister did not remain opinion only, but it is acted upon by withdrawal of the Letters Patent Appeal. Further, it is the State authority which had decide the premium amount of Rs. 7,73,12,315/-, which the petitioners had/have shown willingness to pay the same. (ix) it appears to be a glaring example of inaction and unfair attitude on the part of the State by not taking prompt decision despite withdrawal of the Letters Patent Appeal in pursuance to Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001. Not only that, but the inaction on the part of the State by not accepting the premium amount fixed by the District Land Valuation Committee and thereby, procrastinating the matter for such a long period and taking different stands at different times etc., is in contravention to the State Litigation Policy. 8. In the above premises, this Court is of the view that present writ petition should be allowed in part and the impugned communications dated 03.04.2012 and 10.07.2012 deserve to be quashed and set aside. The District Land Valuation Committee had determined the price of the land in question on 29.08.2007 of Rs. 7,73,12,315/- and thereafter, the State Government had decided to withdraw the Letters Patent Appeal, as discussed herein above and accordingly, it was withdrawn on 23.11.2009. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners are required to pay premium for the period from 30.08.2007 to 23.11.2009 i.e. the period between fixation of price by the District Land Valuation Committee and withdrawal of the Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners are required to pay premium for the period from 30.08.2007 to 23.11.2009 i.e. the period between fixation of price by the District Land Valuation Committee and withdrawal of the Letters Patent Appeal. An additional amount, if any, be determined as per the prevailing policy of the State in this regard, on the price so decided i.e. Rs. 7,73,12,315/- is to be paid. So far as rent of the land in question for the period from 1969 till regularization of the land is concerned, if after verifying the relevant record, the concerned authority finds any outstanding of the petitioners towards rent, the Government shall be at liberty to recover the same as per the policy of the Government with interest, however, the same shall be after affording due opportunity of hearing and producing of documentary evidence to the petitioners. 9. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is partly allowed and the impugned communications dated 03.04.2012 and 10.07.2012 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to determine the price of the land in question as stated herein above and accept the same accordingly, and allot the land to the petitioners on ownership basis. Thereafter, the petitioners may move the concerned authority pursuing their prayer with regard to grant permission for construction of houses and for sanctioning the plans for construction of housing society as per the T. P. Scheme of Anjar (Kutch) and G.D.C.R., in accordance with law. The concerned respondent authorities are at liberty to levy the rent qua the land in question, if not paid by the petitioners, after proper verification of the record and giving due opportunity of hearing and producing documentary evidence to the petitioners, in accordance with law, with interest, as per the policy of the Government. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Further order : After pronouncement of this judgment and order, learned Assistant Government Pleader requested to stay the operation and implementation of the present order for two weeks so as to enable the State authority to prefer an appeal, which was objected by the learned advocate for the petitioners. No order as to costs. Further order : After pronouncement of this judgment and order, learned Assistant Government Pleader requested to stay the operation and implementation of the present order for two weeks so as to enable the State authority to prefer an appeal, which was objected by the learned advocate for the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the fact that since the petitioners are directed to deposit the amount of premium as determined by the concerned State authority as also the differential amount, as aforesaid, no such request is required to be granted and accordingly, it is declined.