ORDER : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the original petitioner – Shri Bhulabhai Desai Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited challenging the oral judgement dated 08.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the oral judgement under challenge, the learned Single Judge refused to entertain the prayer of the appellant – original petitioner to pay the amount of premium of Rs. 4,17,632/with reasonable rate of interest which was determined as far back as in the year 1982. The learned Single Judge held that after a period of 28 years, the appellant – original petitioner cannot be permitted to say that he will make the payment of premium which was determined 28 years back with interest. The learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the petition. 2. Facts in a nutshell are as under: 2.1 The land in question on which the Society has built dwelling units – 163 in number under the Weaker and Economically Backward Class scheme, was originally owned by one Kikiben and son Vasantbhai Bhulabhai Desai. The land is situated at Survey No. 149 at village Katargam, Ta. and Dist. Surat. Since the land was a New Tenure land, the original owners on 02.01.1982 applied for a scheme for building houses. The application was made under the provisions of Section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act) 1976 ('the Act' for short). 2.2 On 15.10.1982, the land owners made an application to the Surat Municipal Corporation for approval of plans which was granted on 07.12.1982. Such permission for Non Agricultural (NA) use was granted, subject to the terms and conditions of the order therein. As per one of the terms and conditions of the order dated 07.12.1982, the original land owners were required to pay Rs. 4,17,632/as premium for the said non – agricultural use of the land within two months from the date of the order. 2.3 On 25.11.1984, the Talaticum Mantri Katargam recorded a Mutation Entry No. 7303 in respect of the permission so granted. The original land owners did not comply with the condition of depositing the premium within two months as per the order and therefore on 02.05.1992. the Deputy Collector, Surat passed an order directing the land owners to deposit the amount of premium within 21 days. The original land owners did not comply with the condition of depositing the premium within two months as per the order and therefore on 02.05.1992. the Deputy Collector, Surat passed an order directing the land owners to deposit the amount of premium within 21 days. The original land owners did not do so and therefore the Mamlatdar, Choriyasi registered a charge of the said amount of premium on 16.07.1992. 2.4 From the facts on record, it is evident that the original land owners challenged the order dated 02.05.1992 directing them to pay the premium before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by filing a Revision Application bearing No. TEN/BS/113 of 1992. The Tribunal by its order dated 08.02.1995 remanded the matter to the authority to decide the premium afresh. The original land owner Kikiben died on 24.05.1995. The application for building houses under Section 21 of the Act was rejected on 28.02.1996 which was also challenged before the competent authority and the Tribunal by its order dated 06.06.1996 remanded the matter for fresh consideration. During this entire period i.e. between the period of 1982 and 199596, neither did the original owners nor the Society in question pay the amount of premium so computed in the year 1982. 2.5 A Complaint was lodged by the Society on 07.01.2004 before the Grievance Redressal Authority of the Revenue Department with regard to the payment of premium. On 26.10.2004, the Deputy Collector, Surat asked the parties to remain present on 03.11.2004. The original land owner as well as the Society on 24.11.2004 made detailed written submissions on the aspect of premium. 2.6 On 19.10.2007, the Collector, Surat communicated to the original petitioner that a proposal has been forwarded for computing premium as per the latest market value. To this, a representative of the petitioner Society on 26.10.2007 made a request that the premium be charged at reasonable rates. On 21.05.2008, the petitioner Society made a representation to the Secretary, Revenue Department and the Collector, Surat showing readiness and willingness to pay the premium amount so computed in the year 1982 with interest. 2.7 On 29.07.2008, the Collector Surat communicated to the petitioner Society that a proposal in respect of the premium was determined by the District Valuation Committee in its meeting held on 23.03.2007 and it was decided that the premium shall be charged as per the rates determined by the District Valuation Committee. 2.7 On 29.07.2008, the Collector Surat communicated to the petitioner Society that a proposal in respect of the premium was determined by the District Valuation Committee in its meeting held on 23.03.2007 and it was decided that the premium shall be charged as per the rates determined by the District Valuation Committee. Since the representation was not decided, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 13460 of 2008. The prayer made in that petition was for a direction upon the respondents, namely, the State and the competent Collector to decide the representation dated 21.05.2008 in accordance with law. By an order passed by this Court on 19.01.2009, the Court directed the respondents to decide the representation in accordance with law and disposed of the petition. 2.8 By an Order dated 03.02.2009, which was the subject matter of the petition before the learned Single Judge, the District Collector, Surat taking into consideration the previous history, as narrated hereinabove, opined that though the premium was determined in the year 1982, for a period of 14 years till the year 1999, when on 30.03.1999 the Act was repealed, the Society had not paid premium. That the premium was determined in the year 1982, the Revenue Tribunal on 08.02.1985 had remanded the matter for reconsideration. For all this period, the premium was not paid either by the original owners or the Society – the petitioner. During the years 2004 – 2008, representations were made. On 21.05.2008, a representation was made by the Society to pay premium at the rate computed in the year 1982 with interest. Considering the overall facts, the Collector had held that the premium ought to be paid at the prevailing rates on the date when the application was made on 21.05.2008. The Collector further held that in view of the policy in vogue, i.e. the Resolution of 04.07.2008, by which the new jantri rates have been made applicable since 01.04.2008, the Society is required to pay premium at the new jantri rates. The premium so computed at Rs.12000/per meter totalling an amount of Rs.31,92,96,000/ought to be paid in the opinion of the Collector. This led to filing of the petition which was decided by the learned Single Judge by the Oral Judgement under challenge. 3. Mr. The premium so computed at Rs.12000/per meter totalling an amount of Rs.31,92,96,000/ought to be paid in the opinion of the Collector. This led to filing of the petition which was decided by the learned Single Judge by the Oral Judgement under challenge. 3. Mr. Jitendra Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner appellant would submit that after the order passed on 02.05.1992 asking the owners to pay premium of Rs. 4,17,632/, the order was a subject matter of challenge before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal which had remanded the matter and no proceedings for assessing fresh premium was made in accordance with law. He would further submit that the order dated 03.02.2009 was passed without hearing the petitioner. 3.1 Mr. Patel would further submit that the computation of premium based on market price of jantri dated 01.04.2008 was also not permissible. The premium was fixed in the year 1982 which ought not to have been revised by the Collector. 3.2 Mr. Patel would further submit that the appellant Society was formed for economically and backward sections wherein 163 residential units were constructed since 1985 after obtaining all necessary permissions and merely because the original land owners did not pay premium, the Society should not be put to the unnecessary financial burden of paying an exorbitant premium. 3.3 In support of his submissions, Mr. Patel relied on the decision in the case of Man Mandir Cooperative Housing Society vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2007 (2) GLR 1111 . He also relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jayantilal Manilal Shah vs. Collector, Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1928 of 2007. He also relied on another decision of this court in Special Civil Application No. 6725 of 2013 in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Seemanagar Society dated 19.12.2014 to submit that the determination of premium by order dated 03.02.2009 was contrary to the settled position as held by this court in the decisions referred to. 4. Mr. K.M. Antani, learned AGP appearing for the State would take the court through the order dated 03.02.2009 and submit that the initial premium which was determined in the year 1982 was not paid by the original land owners till the year 1992. 4. Mr. K.M. Antani, learned AGP appearing for the State would take the court through the order dated 03.02.2009 and submit that the initial premium which was determined in the year 1982 was not paid by the original land owners till the year 1992. Again in 1992, on notice to pay within 21 days even that was not complied with either by the original owners or the Society. The permission under the Act was rejected in the year 1996. On a direction of this court, by the order dated 19.01.2008, it was pursuant to a representation made by the Society on 21.05.2009 that based on the policy of 04.07.2008, the Collector decided the issue of premium and a Society which had constructed dwelling units despite permission being cancelled in 1996 and the Act having lapsed on 30.03.1999 and in absence of any permission thereafter, the Society was bound to pay premium. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the respective parties, from the facts narrated hereinabove, what is evident is as under: (a) The original owners were granted NA permission on 07.12.1982. This was pursuant to a development permission sought for and granted by the Surat Nagarpalika. The order dated 07.12.1982 was specific and clear that the permission was subject to the payment of premium computed therein i.e. payment of Rs. 4,17,632/as premium to be paid. (b) 10 years thereafter, on 02.05.1992, the Collector opined that though the premium was computed in the year 1982, the same was not paid by the original owners and/or the Society who subsequently appears to have purchased the land and therefore within 21 days it was called upon to deposit the premium. (c) Having failed to do so, the Mamlatdar, Choriyasi was constrained to register a charge of outstanding premium on the lands in question by order dated 16.07.1992. (d) The argument of Shri Patel that the order of 02.05.1992 stood obliterated by way of remand of the Tribunal is misconceived. From the conduct of the petitioner, what is apparent is that having purchased the lands from the original owners it could not disown the liability or responsibility to pay premium which was outstanding since the year 1982. (d) The argument of Shri Patel that the order of 02.05.1992 stood obliterated by way of remand of the Tribunal is misconceived. From the conduct of the petitioner, what is apparent is that having purchased the lands from the original owners it could not disown the liability or responsibility to pay premium which was outstanding since the year 1982. This omission as to the culpability of the appellant, when specifically on 28.02.1996 the permission under Section 21 was rejected, the appellant – petitioner went ahead and carried out constructions of the 163 dwelling units in blatant defiance of the orders. Albeit, it would be the submission of Mr. Patel that the rejection of permission in 1996 was a subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal which remanded the matter that would not absolve the society of the twin culpability of not having paid premium and proceeding to construct on the lands in question without payment of premium, which was a condition sine qua non, on which NA permission was granted in the year 1982. The premium remained outstanding throughout the tenure of the occupation of the land by the Society. (e) From the perusal of the order dated 03.02.2009 passed by the Collector, which was the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge, in our opinion the learned Single Judge has rightly observed as under: “4. Having heard Shri N.V. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Mengdey, learned Assistant Government Pleader, it appears that as such the nonagricultural use permission was granted as far as back in the year 1982 on condition to pay a sum of Rs.4,17,632/by way of premium. The original land owner did not pay the amount of premium as per the order passed by the Deputy Collector in the year 1982 and infact without making payment of premium, started making use of the land in question for nonagricultural purpose. Even thereafter, after a period of 10 years, the Deputy Collector directed the original owner to pay the amount of premium within 21 days. Still the original owner did not paid the said amount of premium. Thereafter, the petitioner Society came to be constructed despite nonpayment of the amount of premium. Even thereafter, after a period of 10 years, the Deputy Collector directed the original owner to pay the amount of premium within 21 days. Still the original owner did not paid the said amount of premium. Thereafter, the petitioner Society came to be constructed despite nonpayment of the amount of premium. On nonpayment of the amount of premium, the nonagricultural use permission which was a conditional order lapsed, meaning thereby, on non-deposit of the amount of premium there was no nonagricultural permission at all. Still for all these years, the petitioner Society and its members and the original owner made the use of the land for nonagricultural purpose illegally. That thereafter, after various proceedings, the Collector passed a fresh order determining the amount of premium. 5. In view of the above, the prayer of the petitioner to pay the amount of premium of Rs.4,17,632/with reasonable rate of interest thereon, the amount of premium which was determined as far back as in the year 1982, cannot be accepted. After a period of 28 years, petitioner cannot be permitted to say that they will make the payment of premium which was determined 20 years back, may be with interest. In between number of policies have been changed and policy with respect to determining the amount of premium has also changed. Under the circumstances, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer of the petitioner to direct the respondents to accept the premium of Rs.4,17,632/with reasonable rate of interest cannot be accepted. So far as reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in Man Mandir Cooperative Housing Society Limited (Supra) is concerned, on facts the same shall not be applicable. In the present case, the amount of premium was already determined as far as back in the year 1982 and thereafter, there was a further communication in the year 1992 i.e. after a period of 10 years granting nonagricultural permission and still for all these years neither the original owner nor the occupier or the petitioner and/or its members have paid amount of premium. Under the circumstances, the decision of this Court relied on by the petitioner, would not be of any assistance to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the decision of this Court relied on by the petitioner, would not be of any assistance to the petitioner. Hence, there is no substance in the present petition and deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.” (f) The Collector has observed that the premium was determined on the basis of the representation made on 21.05.2008. The policy then, when the decision of the Collector was taken on the representation pursuant to the directions of this court on 19.01.2009, was the policy of 04.07.2008. The policy, therefore, required the petitioner Society to pay premium at the jantri rates of 01.04.2008. (g) It is not open for the appellant to cry foul now after several years as observed by the learned Single Judge and claim that they are ready and willing to pay the premium stipulated in the year 1982. Even in the petition filed namely Special Civil Application No. 13460 of 2008, the only prayer of the petitioner Society was for a direction to decide the representation dated 21.05.2008 in accordance with law. It was never the case of the petitioner that the premium be recomputed. (h) In accordance with the representation of 21.05.2008 and keeping in view the history of the land occupier which suggested that the premium which was determined in the year 1982 was not paid for several years either by the owners or the Society, the revenue authorities were compelled to register a charge. However, the Society continued to construct despite a precondition of deposit of premium. The ULC permission under Section 21 the Act was rejected in the year 1996 and remained so operative till the lapse of the Act on 30.03.1999. Therefore, the revenue authorities had no other option but to fix premium in accordance with the prevailing policy of the year 2008, based on a representation made by the appellant Society in May 2008. (i) As far as the decision of this court in the case of Man Mandir (supra) is concerned, the said decision will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Perusal of the judgement, especially para 23 thereof, would indicate that in the said case, the land owners had already paid the premium that was determined in the year 1981. The permission under Section 21 of the Act was also rejected. Perusal of the judgement, especially para 23 thereof, would indicate that in the said case, the land owners had already paid the premium that was determined in the year 1981. The permission under Section 21 of the Act was also rejected. The case under consideration before us indicates that since the year 1982, though the premium was determined, it was never paid for all these years. The appellant continued to construct dwelling units despite the outstanding premium amount and rejection of their application under Section 21. So is the case relied upon by Mr. Patel in the judgement of the Division Bench in the case of Jayantilal Manilal (supra). Therein also the construction was carried out after the permission was granted. The judgements relied upon by Mr. Patel in context of the facts would not therefore be applicable to the appellant and therefore will not be of any help to him. 6. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, especially in view of the findings recorded in the oral judgement paras 4 and 5, which we have quoted hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.