JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present Civil Application (for stay) No.1 of 2022 is taken up for final disposal. 2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Nikunj Kanara, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent – State and Mr.Digant Popat, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the private respondent. 3. The present application has been filed by the applicants i.e. original petitioners (hereinafter referred to as “the original petitioners”) seeking stay of execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Secretary”) whereby, the revision application filed by the opponent no.1 i.e. original respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as “private respondent”) has been accepted and the matter has been remitted to the Collector to pass the order afresh, after hearing all the parties. 4. This Court had passed an order dated 29.3.2022 in the captioned writ petition, issuing notice and notice as to interim relief, returnable on 12.4.2022. The respondents have been served. Affidavit of direct service is also filed which contains the signatures of all the respondents including the private respondents, they having been served on 8.4.2022. From the record, it appears that except respondent no.1 and respondent nos.11, 12, 13 and 14, rest of the respondents have chosen not to enter appearance. 5. The petitioners, as aforesaid, filed the civil application (for stay) seeking stay of the execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 16.3.2022 passed by learned Secretary. The issue in the captioned writ petition is grant of NA permission and subsequent cancellation with respect to land being survey no./block no.2380 (old survey no.1407/2A admeasuring 2333 sq.mtrs. situated at Village: Karannagar, District: Mehsana. 6. Tersely stated are the facts: 6.1 In the year 2008, the petitioners have purchased the land admeasuring 2973 sq.mtrs. out of total 5868 sq.mtrs. and the land admeasuring 2333 sq.mtrs. was purchased by the petitioners in the year 2020. According to the petitioners, the adjoining land was also purchased by the petitioners in the year 2021 and therefore, the petitioners became the owner of survey nos.2380, 2381, 2383 and 2384. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted application to the mamlatdar for amalgamating all the four survey numbers, i.e, survey nos.2380, 2381, 2383 and 2384. According to the petitioners, the adjoining land was also purchased by the petitioners in the year 2021 and therefore, the petitioners became the owner of survey nos.2380, 2381, 2383 and 2384. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted application to the mamlatdar for amalgamating all the four survey numbers, i.e, survey nos.2380, 2381, 2383 and 2384. Accepting the request of the petitioners, the mamlatdar passed an order dated 09.02.2021, amalgamating all the four survey numbers by giving them a new survey no.2380 admeasuring 6551 sq.mtrs. Since the petitioners were desirous of developing the land, submitted an application dated 04.05.2021 under the provisions of Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) read with the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). The Collector, vide order dated 22.06.2021, allowed the application and granted the NA permission. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22.06.2021, the private respondent approached the learned Secretary. The learned Secretary, after hearing the parties, inter alia, was of the opinion that the land of the private respondent has been reduced in the year 1983-84 from acre 0-35 gunthas to acre 0-17 gunthas, which aspect has not been considered by the Collector and therefore, the matter has been remitted to the Collector with a direction to take a fresh decision. The petitioners, being aggrieved, have filed the captioned writ petition and the Court passed an order dated 29.03.2022 issuing notice and notice as to interim relief. During the pendency, the petitioners have filed the present civil application seeking urgent order. Hence, the present application with the aforementioned prayers. 8. Mr.R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Ajay Jagirdar, the learned advocate for the petitioners, while inviting the attention of this Court to entry no.5611 dated 08.01.1991, submitted that the measurement of the respective parcels of the land was undertaken, as a result and on the basis of the plot book, entry no.5611 was posted in the revenue record. It is submitted that so far as survey nos.1407/2/A and 1407/2/B are concerned, the same were admeasuring acre 1-18 gunthas and acre 0-17 gunthas respectively. It is submitted that so far as village form no.7/12 with respect to survey no.1407/2/B is concerned, the area mentioned is acre 0-17gunthas. 8.1. It is submitted that so far as survey nos.1407/2/A and 1407/2/B are concerned, the same were admeasuring acre 1-18 gunthas and acre 0-17 gunthas respectively. It is submitted that so far as village form no.7/12 with respect to survey no.1407/2/B is concerned, the area mentioned is acre 0-17gunthas. 8.1. While inviting the attention of this Court to the entry no.11338 dated 24.06.2021, it is submitted that the said entry is as a result of the family partition amongst the family members and so far as the private respondent is concerned, survey no.2385 (old survey no.1407/B), admeasuring 1626 sq.mtrs., i.e. acre 0-17 gunthas had come to his share. The said entry was certified on 02.09.2021 and therefore, as per the family partition, the land, which had come to the share of the private respondent, was 1626 sq.mtrs. and therefore, it would be impermissible for the private respondent to claim more than what he had received in the partition. 8.2. While referring to the order dated 22.06.2021 of the Collector, granting NA permission, it is submitted that after verifying the records, the Collector has granted the permission and, acting upon the said permission, the petitioners have carried out the construction. As of today, as per the lay out plan, the petitioners have carried out the construction of almost 42 bungalows and the allotment has also been done in favour of the third party. It is submitted that the order passed under Section 65 by the Collector is an administrative in nature and the authorities cannot go into the title or ownership of the party, applying for NA permission and the issue is no longer res-integra. It is submitted that the private respondent is raising the dispute for the reasons best known to him. 8.3. While further inviting the attention of this Court to the order dated 16.03.2022 of the learned Secretary, more particularly, paragraph 5.1, it is submitted that a detailed chronology together with the status of both the survey numbers, i.e. survey no.1407/2/A and survey no.1407/2/B is clearly recorded. Till the year 1973-74, the land bearing survey no.1407/2/A was admeasuring 1 acre whereas, survey no.1407/2/B was admeasuring acre 0-35 gunthas and thereafter, from the year 1983-84, survey no.1407/2/A was admeasuring acre 1-18 gunthas whereas, survey no.1407/2/B was admeasuring acre 0-17 gunthas. Till the year 1973-74, the land bearing survey no.1407/2/A was admeasuring 1 acre whereas, survey no.1407/2/B was admeasuring acre 0-35 gunthas and thereafter, from the year 1983-84, survey no.1407/2/A was admeasuring acre 1-18 gunthas whereas, survey no.1407/2/B was admeasuring acre 0-17 gunthas. It is further submitted that the survey no.1407/2/A was assigned a new survey no.2383 whereas, survey no.1407/2/B was assigned survey no.2385 admeasuring 2931 sq.mtrs. and 1626 sq.mtrs. respectively. The said area is in sync with the family partition which is recorded in the village form no.6 vide entry no.11338 dated 24.06.2021. It is, therefore, submitted that since the year 1983-84, land bearing survey no.1407/2/B was acre 0-17 gunthas, i.e, 1626 sq.mtrs., and the private respondent had never raised any objection qua the reduction of the area. The situation that was prevailing since the year 1983-84, has been continued. 8.4. So far as the contention raised before the learned Secretary and, more particularly paragraph 2.8, would be beyond the purview and jurisdiction of the learned Secretary. It is submitted that the allegations of tampering with the area of the land from acre-gunthas 0-35 to acre 0-17 gunthas would be misplaced inasmuch as, the said contention would be beyond the scope of revision application. If, at all, the private respondent has any grievance about the reduction in area, he can file a suit before the competent Civil Court. It is submitted that the learned Secretary has gone into the said contention raised by the private respondent of reduction of the area which would be impermissible. The learned Secretary has, in paragraph 5.6, observed that the land bearing survey no.1407/2/B was admeasuring acre 0-35 gunthas in the year 1983-84 and subsequently, in the revised survey number, the same has been reduced to acre 0-17 gunthas. The learned Secretary was of the opinion that the addition of the land has not been considered by the Collector and order has been passed. It is submitted that it is a well settled principle that while considering the NA application, the authorities have only to consider the fact that as to whether, the person applying for NA permission, is an occupant or not, title and ownership cannot be gone into. Therefore, the learned Secretary ought not to have made such observations. 8.5. It is submitted that it is a well settled principle that while considering the NA application, the authorities have only to consider the fact that as to whether, the person applying for NA permission, is an occupant or not, title and ownership cannot be gone into. Therefore, the learned Secretary ought not to have made such observations. 8.5. It is submitted that, if at all, the private respondent has any grievance about the reduction of the area from acre 0-35 gunthas to acre 0-17 gunthas, it was always open to him to file the suit. However, since the year 1983-84 till the year 2021, the reduction was not challenged and recently, only in the year 2022, the suit has been filed. It is submitted that though suit has been filed, no injunction has been granted by the Civil Court. It is further submitted that so far as the entry no.5611 is concerned wherein, the area has been earmarked of survey no.1407/2/A vis-a-vis survey no.1407/2/B admeasuring acre 1-18 gunthas and acre 0-17 gunthas, has not been challenged. If at all, the private respondent was aggrieved, he could have challenged the said entry no.5611 which was posted in the year 1991. 8.6. So far as the aspect of NA permission is concerned, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2019)4 GLR 2578 . It is submitted that this Court, while considering the provisions of Section 65 of the Code, held and observed that the plain reading of Section 65 makes it clear that for the purpose of grant of NA permission, the first thing, the Collector should look into, is whether the applicant, seeking NA permission, is an occupant of the land which is being assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture. It has been held and observed that Section 65 of the Code provides for the uses to which an occupant of the land for the purpose of agriculture may put his land to. If the occupant of the land wishes to use the land for purposes other than the agriculture or agriculture-related activities, he is required to make an application to the Collector for permission to do so. If the occupant of the land wishes to use the land for purposes other than the agriculture or agriculture-related activities, he is required to make an application to the Collector for permission to do so. The key word in Section 65 is the occupant of the land, and it is sufficient for the purpose of Section 65 that the person, applying for NA permission, is an occupant of the land. It is, therefore, submitted that Section 65 envisages a limited inquiry and, therefore, the reduction or addition of the area could not have been gone into. 8.7. It is submitted that, as is discernible from the record, the grievance raised by the private respondent is with regard to the reduction of the area from acre 0-35 gunthas to acre 0-17 gunthas. However, the private respondent has lost sight of the fact that the private respondent, by way of a family partition, has received the area of 1626 sq.mtrs. to his share. Therefore, if at all, the private respondent has any grievance, he is required to establish his right before the Civil Court. Even otherwise, considering the documents available on record, the contention of the private respondent that he is entitled for a larger area is misconceived in view of the fact that in the year 1983-84, the area of the land bearing survey no.1407/2/B was only acre 0-17 gunthas which position continued since then, which is strengthened by the 7/12 extracts. It is submitted that so far as the grievance of the private respondent as regards the reduction of the area and he being entitled for higher area is concerned, it will not be the issue which can be decided by the Collector under the provisions of Section 65. 8.8. Similarly, the learned Secretary also will have no jurisdiction under Section 211 to go into the aspect of the ownership and/or the share of the private respondent. It is, therefore, urged that the petition be admitted and the order of the learned Secretary dated 16.03.2022 deserves to be stayed. 9. 8.8. Similarly, the learned Secretary also will have no jurisdiction under Section 211 to go into the aspect of the ownership and/or the share of the private respondent. It is, therefore, urged that the petition be admitted and the order of the learned Secretary dated 16.03.2022 deserves to be stayed. 9. On the other hand Mr.Digant Popat, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed the grant of stay on the ground that the petition is tainted with the vice of suppression of material facts inasmuch as, the survey nos.2383 and 2384 along with the other survey numbers, i.e., survey nos.2380 and 2381 came to be purchased by the petitioners in the year 2008 and 2020 respectively. The petitioners as well as the predecessor in title, had approached the learned Collector, seeking permission with respect to survey nos.2383 and 2384 vide applications dated 23.10.2020 and 25.10.2020 respectively. The private respondent filed his objection dated 29.10.2020 against the grant of NA permission. However, the Collector, after considering the application so also, the objection, rejected the request of the predecessor-in-title and the petitioners for grant of NA permission vide order dated 10.11.2020. It is submitted that the only option available to the petitioners was either to challenge the order rejecting the NA application or to cure the defects, which were pointed out by the learned Collector. It is submitted that the petitioners, without curing the defects as pointed out by the Collector, straightway moved an application to the mamlatdar, seeking amalgamation/consolidation of the four survey numbers which led to passing of the order dated 09.02.2021 by which, all the four survey numbers were amalgamated and were assigned a new survey no.2380 consisting of land admeasuring 6559 sq.mtrs. 9.1. It is submitted that without challenging the order and without curing the defects, the petitioners, by suppressing the earlier order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the Collector rejecting the application, once again, made an application to the Collector for NA permission. The application has been moved as if nothing has happened earlier. It is submitted that the filing of the another application by the petitioners, and that too without disclosing the fact of rejection of the earlier application, is nothing but a mischievous attempt on the part of the petitioners. The application has been moved as if nothing has happened earlier. It is submitted that the filing of the another application by the petitioners, and that too without disclosing the fact of rejection of the earlier application, is nothing but a mischievous attempt on the part of the petitioners. It was incumbent upon the petitioners to have first removed the defects; however, the petitioners had applied for NA permission by suppressing the past facts. It is further submitted that from the averments made in the memo of the petition, it is clear that the petitioners, in paragraph 3.3, has narrated the facts, namely; (i) as regards purchase of the land by the petitioners; (ii) application for resurvey of the land; (iii) factum of mutation entry no.5611; (iv) challenge to the mutation entry no.5611 and (v) the factum of the partition of the land of the private respondent. Immediately thereafter, the averments are made to the effect that the NA permission, which was granted to the petitioners, has been challenged before the learned Secretary. It is submitted that such averments are misleading and therefore, there is a suppression on the part of the petitioners at two stages, namely, one before the Collector while filing the second application, seeking NA permission and another before this Court while challenging the order of the learned Secretary. It is submitted that the petitioners have not only suppressed the material facts but, have also filed a false affidavit before this Court by making incorrect averments in the petition memo creating an impression, as if, it was for the first time that the petitioners had applied for NA permission which came to be granted, and it is the very same permission that has been quashed and set aside by the learned Secretary. It is therefore, submitted that the attempt on the part of the petitioners is nothing but, a perjury by filing a false affidavit. 9.2. While referring to the order of the Collector, it is submitted that the earlier order of the Collector, rejecting the NA application has not been challenged before any higher forum and, therefore, the said order has attained finality and once such order is in existence, the second application could not have been entertained by the Collector. 9.3. 9.2. While referring to the order of the Collector, it is submitted that the earlier order of the Collector, rejecting the NA application has not been challenged before any higher forum and, therefore, the said order has attained finality and once such order is in existence, the second application could not have been entertained by the Collector. 9.3. While adverting to the order of the learned Secretary, it is submitted that the learned Secretary was of the opinion that the grant of NA application is behind the back of the private respondent. It is submitted that everything was placed before the learned Secretary and after taking into consideration all the aspects, the Secretary has remanded the matter to the Collector. It is submitted that the aspects and contentions raised before the learned Secretary were not before the Collector and that the Collector was not having the benefit of considering the same while passing the order dated 22.06.2021. It is therefore, submitted that no error has been committed by the Secretary in passing the order dated 16.03.2022 and what has been done is only a remand to the Collector with a direction to decide the matter afresh. It is submitted that the contention is also raised by the petitioners that the dispute is 18 years old and that at the most, going by the rights of the private respondent, the petitioners are ready to keep vacant the acre 0-18 gunthas of land. It is submitted that such contention would be available to the petitioners only if such land is available with them inasmuch as the said 17 gunthas land of the respondent is not vacant and, therefore, such contention or the statement also cannot be considered. It is submitted that even, the conduct of the petitioners is required to be tested inasmuch as, after the order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the learned Secretary, rejecting the NA permission, the petitioners continued with the construction work and therefore, the same is nothing but an illegal construction. Such conduct of the petitioners shall not allow the petitioners to seek the interim protection from this Court. Therefore, on the ground of equity as well the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief, the present application deserves to be dismissed. 9.4. Such conduct of the petitioners shall not allow the petitioners to seek the interim protection from this Court. Therefore, on the ground of equity as well the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief, the present application deserves to be dismissed. 9.4. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 . The Apex Court has held and observed that the High Court exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, above a court of law is also a court of equity. It is therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is a suppression of material fact on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into the merits of the matter. It has been further observed that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. It has been held and observed that if the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppress the relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. It is therefore, submitted that in the present case, if one is to go by the averments made in the writ petition, there is a clear suppression of material facts on the part of the petitioners, more particularly, in paragraph 3.3 of the petition wherein, what has been averred is the challenge to the order of the Collector before the Secretary, granting NA permission and not the earlier rejection. 9.5. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dalip Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 . It is submitted that in the said decision, when the Apex Court found that the petitioners had misled the authorities and the High Court as well as the Apex Court, the conduct on the part of the petitioners was held to be reprehensible. It is submitted that in the said decision, when the Apex Court found that the petitioners had misled the authorities and the High Court as well as the Apex Court, the conduct on the part of the petitioners was held to be reprehensible. The Apex Court, while recording its displeasure, did not entertain the appeal and dismissed the same. 9.6. Further reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jayaram & Ors. vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1194. It has been held and observed that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioners, approaching the Writ Court, must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the Court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced. It is therefore, submitted that only on the ground that the petitioners have suppressed the material facts, not only before this Court but also before the Deputy Collector, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 9.7. It is submitted that with such facts in background, the learned Secretary was right in remanding the matter back to the Collector and the Collector has now, the benefit of all the material facts for deciding the NA application afresh. It is urged that the civil application does not deserve to be entertained. 10. Mr. Sanjanwala, the learned Senior Counsel, in rejoinder, submitted that the argument of the private respondent that there is a tempering with the revenue record is incorrect inasmuch as since the year 1983-84, the land which is running in the name of the private respondent, is acre 0-17 gunthas. On 10.09.2021, by way of a family partition, what had come to the share of the private respondent is 1626 sq.mtrs. and, therefore, as on 10.09.2021, what was available to the private respondent was 1626 sq.mtrs.. Moreover, entry no.5611 dated 08.01.1991 also indicates that survey no.1407/2/B was admeasuring acre 0-17 gunthas. On 10.09.2021, by way of a family partition, what had come to the share of the private respondent is 1626 sq.mtrs. and, therefore, as on 10.09.2021, what was available to the private respondent was 1626 sq.mtrs.. Moreover, entry no.5611 dated 08.01.1991 also indicates that survey no.1407/2/B was admeasuring acre 0-17 gunthas. It is submitted that if at all, the private respondent has any grievance, it can very well file a suit which has been filed as late as in the year 2022. It is submitted that it is very much open to the private respondent to get the order of injunction. Even otherwise, the dispute of reduction and his claim of higher area, cannot be considered while deciding the application, seeking NA permission. 10.1. It is submitted that in the case of Bhayabhai Vajshibhai Hathalia & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2012 (2) GLR 1741 , this Court has not only considered the aspect of grant of NA permission but also, the locus of the party objecting to the grant of NA permission. In paragraph 20, this Court has held and observed that plain reading of Section 65 does not envisage the scope of raising any objection in any party, who is not acknowledged right or interest in the land in question. Proceedings under Section 65 of the Code is not an adversary proceedings at all. If any interested party is apprehending any smart practice on anyone in respect of the land, it can always take recourse to the Civil Court for obtaining appropriate injunction or prohibitory orders. It is further observed that when the party fails to obtain any appropriate order of injunction or prohibitory order from the competent Civil Court, then that party at least would not be entitled to seek any prohibitory orders against the person, whose name is shown in the revenue record as an occupant. Or else, it will lead to a situation where, on account of showing semblance of some interest in the land in question or for that matter even substantive interest, the party who, has not been successful in establishing its right and obtain any prohibitory orders, would succeed in thwarting and throatling the occupant of the land in question, who is legitimately acknowledged to be the occupant. 10.2. 10.2. It is therefore, submitted that in the present case, there is a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners, entry whereof has been posted in the revenue record. As against this, the private respondent, who is now claiming the higher area, has not taken any steps since the year 1983-84 and now, as late as in the year 2022, has filed the suit without seeking any injunction in his favour. Therefore, the observations made by this Court in paragraph 20, squarely apply to the facts of the present case. It is next submitted that the private respondent has no right, much less, any locus. In view of the observations made by this Court in paragraph 20, the private respondent could not have filed the objection and the learned Secretary could not have allowed the revision application. 10.3. It is submitted that as is discernible from the order of the learned Secretary, the tabular chart as shown in paragraph 5.1 of the order makes the picture abundantly clear. Prior to the year 1983-84, the land bearing survey no.1407/2/B was admeasuring acre 0-35 gunthas. Thereafter, the same was reduced to acre 0-17 gunthas in the year 1983-84. The said position has been continued since then. It is submitted that therefore, as per the said chart, the private respondent has lost his rights back in the year 1983-84. So far as the direction issued by the learned Secretary, remanding the matter is concerned, the same is bad in law inasmuch as, when the private respondent has no locus, his objection could not be considered by the learned Secretary. Therefore, the direction of remand by the learned Secretary is ill-founded and without any basis. 10.4. So far as the contention of suppression of material facts is concerned, it is submitted that the conduct of the petitioners is not such that it will dis-entitle them to seek any relief. It is submitted that the application, which was filed first in point of time, was limited to two survey number, which came to be rejected. Thereafter, the petitioners had applied for amalgamation/consolidation of the four survey numbers, namely, survey nos.2380, 2381, 2383 and 2384. The mamlatdar, vide its order dated 09.02.2021, amalgamated all the four survey numbers and gave a single survey number, i.e. survey no.2380 admeasuring 6551 sq.mtrs. Thereafter, the petitioners had applied for amalgamation/consolidation of the four survey numbers, namely, survey nos.2380, 2381, 2383 and 2384. The mamlatdar, vide its order dated 09.02.2021, amalgamated all the four survey numbers and gave a single survey number, i.e. survey no.2380 admeasuring 6551 sq.mtrs. After the said order of the mamlatdar, the petitioners, once again, made an application, seeking NA permission, which came to be granted. Therefore, the second application made by the petitioners was for the consolidated survey numbers. It is submitted that the petitioners have legitimately made an application after the consolidation, which was granted by the Collector. 10.5. It is submitted that everything has been recorded by the learned Secretary in its order, then the question of suppression of material facts would not arise. In paragraph 5.5 of the order, the learned Secretary has narrated about the aspect of the letter of the DILR. The details of the land as well as the survey numbers have also been clearly stated. The reduction of 698 sq.mtrs. has also been stated. After a detailed discussion in paragraph 5.5, what comes is paragraph 5.6, wherein, the objection of the private respondent has been recorded. In paragraph 5.7, the aspect of the NA application by the petitioners and the objection is also recorded. Under the circumstances, the allegation on the part of the private respondent that the petition suffers from the vice of suppression is misplaced. 10.6. It is submitted that the family of the private respondent was having various parcels of land and the partition took place amongst the family members; so far as Vaghela Jiluji Bhagwanji is concerned, he was given survey no.2329 admeasuring 4184 sq.mtrs. and survey no.2427 admeasuring 1502 sq.mtrs. So far as Vaghela Bhikhuji that is the private respondent is concerned, he was given survey no.2385 admeasuring 1626 sq.mtrs. and survey no.2394 admeasuring 3500 sq.mtrs. Therefore, what came to the share of the private respondent was 1626 sq.mtrs. However, the claim of the private respondent that he should have been given more than 1626 sq.mtrs., is misplaced. However, in the proceedings under Section 65, the locus of the private respondent so also, the claim cannot be determined. The suit has been filed by the petitioners and upon adjudication of the suit, if it is found that the private respondent is entitled, he will be getting the appropriate relief. However, in the proceedings under Section 65, the locus of the private respondent so also, the claim cannot be determined. The suit has been filed by the petitioners and upon adjudication of the suit, if it is found that the private respondent is entitled, he will be getting the appropriate relief. It is therefore, submitted that the permission, which was granted by the Collector, has been acted upon and all the facts would justify the suspension of the order of the learned Secretary subject to the outcome of the suit. 10.7. Mr.Sanjanwala, the learned Senior Counsel summarized the submission that it is acceptable position of fact baseds on record that after the years 1983-84, the area has been reduced to acre 0- 17 gunthas and, as a necessary corollary, the petitioners are the owners of acre 1-18 gunthas whereas, the private respondent is having the land admeasuring acre 0-17 gunthas. That the mutation entry nos.5611 and 11338 read with 7/12 forms, clearly go to suggest and conclude that the private respondent is the owner of acre 0-17 gunthas only. Paragraph 5.5 of the order only refers to the factum of the measurement by the DILR and the observations made in paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 are with respect to the claim of the private respondent. That the private respondent therefore, as settled by this Court, has no locus to question the NA permission of the petitioners on the ground that he is entitled to the higher area and, more particularly, in absence of any declaration. That, the Collector will have no jurisdiction to determine the issue or the claim of the private respondent of higher area. That only reason which can be discern out for remand, is in paragraph 5.8 and the same will not be within the jurisdiction of the Collector. That the issues which have been raised by the private respondent are to be adjudicated and determined in the suit and cannot be decided in the application under Section 65 of the Code. That the learned Secretary has also lost the track inasmuch as, the re-survey has been done by the office of the Superintendent, DILR, Land Records vide order dated 08.01.2021, which has been accepted by the party and in the absence of any challenge, it would be impermissible for any authorities to raise the objection. That the learned Secretary has also lost the track inasmuch as, the re-survey has been done by the office of the Superintendent, DILR, Land Records vide order dated 08.01.2021, which has been accepted by the party and in the absence of any challenge, it would be impermissible for any authorities to raise the objection. That the annexures to the order dated 08.10.2021 clearly reflect the total land of survey nos.2380, 2381, 2383 and 2384 as 7136 sq.mtrs. whereas, the area of the survey no.2385 of the private respondent is admeasuring 1416 sq.mtrs. The area, indeed of the petitioners, is higher inasmuch as, the same is 7136 sq.mtrs. instead of 6551 sq.mtrs. whereas, the area of survey no.2385 is 1416 sq.mtrs. instead of 1626 sq.mtrs; however, the petitioners, at present, are only concerned with the area admeasuring 6551 sq.mtrs. for which, NA permission has been granted. It is therefore, urged that the order of the learned Secretary deserves to be suspended. 11. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the documents available on record. 12. The Civil Application has been filed, seeking stay of the execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the learned Secretary. The edifice, on which, the stay has been requested is that the petitioners have already constructed 42 houses on the land admeasuring 6551 sq. mtrs. It is also the case of the petitioners that the private respondent is now claiming his right over the land admeasuring acre 0-17 gunthas, for which, the private respondent has not initiated any proceedings against the petitioners. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is that the private respondent has no right to challenge the N.A. permission. 13. The facts involved are that the land bearing survey no.2380 (old survey no.1407/2/A) admeasuring 2333 sq. mtrs. was purchased by the petitioners from the original owners, i.e. the respondent nos.2 to 8. The adjoining land has also been purchased by the petitioners in the year 2020. The petitioners had become the owner of four survey numbers, i.e. survey nos.2380, 2381, 2383 and 2384. The petitioners applied for amalgamation of all the survey numbers, and the Mamlatdar, after verifying the record, passed an order dated 09.02.2021, assigning a single survey number, i.e. survey no.2380, to all the aforesaid four survey numbers. The petitioners had become the owner of four survey numbers, i.e. survey nos.2380, 2381, 2383 and 2384. The petitioners applied for amalgamation of all the survey numbers, and the Mamlatdar, after verifying the record, passed an order dated 09.02.2021, assigning a single survey number, i.e. survey no.2380, to all the aforesaid four survey numbers. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for N.A. permission before the Collector who, in turn, had granted the permission on 22.06.2021. After the grant of permission, the petitioners applied for development permission along with the proposed layout plan for the residential unit which also came to be sanctioned. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners had started the construction work, and by now, as stated above, 42 houses have been constructed. 14. In the interregnum, the private respondent, who is possessing the land bearing survey no.2385 (old survey no.1407/2/B) has raised an objection on the ground that the land bearing survey no.2385 was initially admeasuring about acre 0-35 gunthas which has now been reduced to acre 0-17 gunthas. The basis, is that the respondent no.2 was elected as a Sarpanch in the year 1983-84 and taking advantage of his post, he sought to change the record and effected the reduction from acre 0-35 gunthas to acre 0-17 gunthas. If one is to go by the record, it is not in dispute, that the land bearing survey no.1407/2/A and the land bearing survey no.1407/2/ B were admeasuring acre 1-00 gunthas and acre 0-35 gunthas respectively in the year 1963-64. The position continued till the year 1983-84; however, in the year 1983-84, record reveals that the land bearing survey no.1407/2/A was admeasuring acre 1-18 gunthas whereas the land bearing survey no.1407/2/B was admeasuring acre 0-17 gunthas. 15. Survey no.1407/2/A was given new survey no.2383 admeasuring 2333 sq. mtrs., whereas survey no.1407/2/B was given new survey no.2385 admeasuring 1626 sq. mtrs. Somewhere in the year 1991, the measurement was undertaken by the revenue authorities and the effect was given in the revenue record in the village form no.6 vide entry no.5611 dated 08.01.1991. Survey no.1407/2/A was earmarked as acre 1-18 gunthas i.e. 2333 sq.mtrs., whereas survey no.1407/2/B was shown as acre 0-17 gunthas i.e. 1626 sq.mtrs. The entry no.5611 was certified on 20.02.1991 by the Circle Officer. Survey no.1407/2/A was earmarked as acre 1-18 gunthas i.e. 2333 sq.mtrs., whereas survey no.1407/2/B was shown as acre 0-17 gunthas i.e. 1626 sq.mtrs. The entry no.5611 was certified on 20.02.1991 by the Circle Officer. The petitioners have placed on record the 7/12 forms of the year 1992-93 to 2001-2002 with respect to survey no.1407/2/ B and area, which is mentioned, is acre 0-17 gunthas. Similarly, the village form no.7/12 of the years 2002 to 2005 have also been placed on record indicating the area of the land bearing survey no.1407/2/B as are 0-17 gunthas. Similarly 7/12 forms of the land bearing survey no.1407/2/A of the years 1983-84 to 1993-94 have also been placed on record indicating the area of the land being acre 1-18 gunthas. Further 7/12 forms of the years 1992-93 to 2001- 2002 have also been placed on record so also the 7/12 forms of the years 2002-2003 to 2004-05. Therefore, as per the revenue record, undeniably, since the year 1983-84, the land bearing survey no.1407/2/A is admeasuring acre 1-18 gunthas i.e. 2333 sq.mtrs., whereas survey no.1407/2/B was admeasuring acre 0-17 gunthas i.e. 1626 sq.mtrs. 16. What comes then is the entry no.11338 which appears to be the family partition, whereby so far as the respondent no.9 is concerned, survey no.2329 admeasuring 0-41 - 84 sq. mtrs. as well as survey no.2427 admeasuring 0-15-02 sq. mtrs. had come to his share. So far as the private respondent is concerned, survey no.2385 admeasuring 1626 square meters and survey no.2394 admeasuring 3500 sq. mtrs. had come to his share. Respondent no.10 has been given survey no.2382 admeasuring 1608 sq. mtrs. Survey no.2394 admeasuring 4424 sq. mtrs. had come to the share of the respondent nos.9 and 10. The said family partition has not been disputed by the private respondent. Therefore, if one is to go by the family partition which has been recorded vide entry no.11338 dated 02.09.2021, what has come to the share of the private respondent is survey no.2385 (old survey no.1407/2/B) admeasuring acre 0-17 gunthas i.e. 1626 sq.mtrs.. It is undisputed that neither the entry no.5611 nor entry no.11338 dated 02.09.2021 has been challenged by the private respondent. 17. This Court confronted Mr. Digant Popat, the learned advocate appearing for private respondent as to whether any challenge has been made to the entry no.5611 dated 08.01.1991 and entry no.11338 dated 02.09.2021. It is undisputed that neither the entry no.5611 nor entry no.11338 dated 02.09.2021 has been challenged by the private respondent. 17. This Court confronted Mr. Digant Popat, the learned advocate appearing for private respondent as to whether any challenge has been made to the entry no.5611 dated 08.01.1991 and entry no.11338 dated 02.09.2021. It has been reported that the said entries have not been challenged. Perceptibly, some portion of survey no.2384 (old survey no.1407/2/A) was purchased by the petitioners in the year 2008 and an entry in this regard being entry no.7583 was also posted in the revenue record which was certified on 10.03.2008. Recently, the remaining portion of survey no.1407/2/ A admeasuring 2333 sq. mtrs. also came to be purchased by the petitioners vide registered sale deed, and the entry in this regard being entry no.11072 dated 05.11.2021 was posted in the revenue record which came to be certified on 17.12.2020. As is discernible from the record, entry no.7583 of the year 2008 was not challenged at the relevant point of time, and recently, it has been challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal being Appeal no.11072. Therefore, entry no.7583 is now the subject matter of challenge together with entry no.11072 dated 05.11.2021. 18. Moreover, the petitioners applied to the Mamlatdar for the purpose of consolidation of all the survey numbers, namely, 2380, 2381, 2383 and 2384, who vide order dated 09.02.2021, permitted the consolidation, and all the four survey numbers, were given survey no.2380 admeasuring 6551 sq.mtrs. It has come on record that the order of the Mamlatdar was initially not challenged, and the same has now been challenged before the Deputy Collector and the appeal is pending consideration. It has also come on record that the private respondent has filed a Regular Civil Suit no.72 of 2022 against the other respondents as well as the petitioners before the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, challenging the family partition, inter alia, seeking declaration that the private respondent is the owner and occupier of acre 0-35 gunthas of survey no.1407/2/ B (new survey no.2385). The private respondent has also sought declaration that the defendant nos.1 to 7 have, in collusion with Talati-cum-Mantri and by tampering the record, got the land admeasuring 2157 sq. mtrs. merged with their survey numbers. The private respondent has also sought declaration that the defendant nos.1 to 7 have, in collusion with Talati-cum-Mantri and by tampering the record, got the land admeasuring 2157 sq. mtrs. merged with their survey numbers. Further grievance of the private respondent is that by doing so, the defendant nos.1 to 7 had illegally executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners. The suit has been filed in the year 2022 together with the application Exh.5. The said Exh.5 application is not heard and no injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiff, i.e, the private respondent. 19. Therefore, from the facts stated herein above, it is clear that so far as the private respondent is concerned, he is yet to establish his right over the land in question inasmuch as, there is no clear document in favour of the private respondent so as to claim the ownership. Therefore, the question then arises is that if a party is yet to establish his right, whether such party can raise objection against the grant of NA application. Section 65 of the Code provides that any occupant of land assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture is entitle by himself, his servants, tenants etc., to erect the farm buildings, construct wells, or make any other improvements thereon for the better cultivation of the land, or its more convenient use for the purpose aforesaid. Section further provides for the procedure if the occupant wishes to apply his land to any other purpose or for different non-agricultural purposes. Section 65 reads thus; “65. (1) Any occupant, of land 12[assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture] is entitled by himself, his servants, tenants, agents, or other legal representatives, to erect farmbuildings, construct wells or tanks, or make any other improvements thereon for the better cultivation of the land, or its more convenient [use for the purpose aforesaid]. But, if any occupant [wishes to use his holding or any part thereof for any other purpose [or for other different purposes] the Collector’s permission shall in the first place be applied for by the [* *] occupant. But, if any occupant [wishes to use his holding or any part thereof for any other purpose [or for other different purposes] the Collector’s permission shall in the first place be applied for by the [* *] occupant. The Collector, on receipt of such application, (a) shall send to the applicant a written acknowledgement of its receipt, and (b) may, after due inquiry, either grant or refuse the permission applied for: Provided that, where the Collector fails to inform the applicant of his decision on the application within a period of three months, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted; such period shall, if the Collector sends a written acknowledgement within seven days from the date of receipt of the application, be reckoned from the date of the acknowledgment, but in any other case it shall be reckoned from the date of receipt of the application.] Unless the Collector shall in particular instances otherwise direct, no such application shall be recognized except it be made by the 4[* *] occupant. 6[* * * * * *] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) but subject to any terms and conditions laid down by the State Government in this behalf, where an occupant has his holding in an area comprising a gram and such area is not within an urban agglomeration or within a radius of five kilometres from the limits of a municipal borough or notified area or industrial estate and such occupant wishes to use his holding or a part thereof only for a residential purpose, it shall not be necessary for him to obtain permission of the Collector under sub-section (1).” It reads, if any occupant wishes to use his holding or any part thereof for any other purpose or for other different purposes, the Collector’s permission shall, in first place, be applied for by the occupant. Therefore, the occupant of the land, if he wishes to apply his land to any other purpose, can make an application to the Collector, and the Collector, on receipt of such application shall, after due inquiry, either grant or refuse the permission applied for. 20. Therefore, the occupant of the land, if he wishes to apply his land to any other purpose, can make an application to the Collector, and the Collector, on receipt of such application shall, after due inquiry, either grant or refuse the permission applied for. 20. The judgment, upon which reliance has been placed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in the case of Bhayabhai Vajshibhai Hathalia (supra), this Court has examined the provisions of Section 65 and held that it does not envisage scope of raising any objection in any party who is not acknowledged right or interest in the land in question. It has been further observed that proceedings under Section 65 of the Code is not an adversary proceedings at all. If any interested party is apprehending any smart practice on any one in respect of land, it can always take recourse to the civil court for obtaining appropriate injunction or prohibitory orders. When the party fails obtaining any order of injunction or prohibitory order from the competent civil court, then that party would not be entitled to seek any prohibitory orders against the person whose name is shown in the revenue record as an occupant. Or else it will lead to a situation where on account of showing semblance of some interest in the land in question or for that matter even substantive interest the party who has not been successful in establishing its right and obtaining any prohibitory orders would succeed in thwarting and throatling the occupant of the land in question who is legitimately acknowledged to be the occupant by revenue authorities. 21. In the present case, as discussed herein above, the land bearing survey no.1407/2/A admeasuring 2973 sq. mtrs. was purchased by the petitioners in the year 2008 and an entry in this regard being Entry No.7583 was certified on 10.03.2008, whereas the remaining portion admeasuring 2333 sq. mtrs. of survey no.1407/2/A (new survey no.2383) was purchased in the year 2020 and an entry in this regard being entry no.11072 was certified on 17.12.2020. The private respondent did not take any steps either to challenge the registered sale deed or the entries. It is only recently, during the pendency of the writ petition that the suit has been filed and entries have been challenged before the Deputy Collector. The private respondent did not take any steps either to challenge the registered sale deed or the entries. It is only recently, during the pendency of the writ petition that the suit has been filed and entries have been challenged before the Deputy Collector. As discussed hereinabove, the private respondent is yet to establish his right over the land in question. As against this, there is a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners, one of the year 2008 with respect to 2973 sq. mtrs. and another of the year 2020 with respect to 2333 sq. mtrs. Therefore, the petitioners are very much the owners and occupiers of the land by virtue of the registered sale deed. 22. The observation made by this Court in Para-20 in the case of Bhayabhai Vajshibhai (supra) applies on all fours to the facts of the present case. Paras-20 and 21, which are relevant for the present purpose, read thus; “20. Thus, from the aforesaid almost indisputable aspects, this Court is called upon to examine the contentions in respect of the order impugned in this petition. Plain reading of section 65 of the Code in my view would persuade the Court to hold that section 65 of the Code does not envisage scope of raising any objection in any party who is not acknowledged right or interest in the land in question. In other words proceedings under section 65 of the Code is not an adversely proceeding at all. If any interested party is apprehending any smart practice on any one in respect of land it can always take recourse to the civil court for obtaining appropriate injunction or prohibitory orders. When the party fails obtaining any appropriate order of injunction or prohibitory order from the competent civil court, then that party, atleast in my view, would not be entitled to seek any prohibitory orders against the person whose name is shown in the revenue record as an occupant. Or else it will lead to a situation where on account of showing semblance of some interest in the land in question or for that matter even substantive interest the party who has not been successful in establishing its right and obtain any prohibitory orders would succeed in thwarting and throatling the occupant of the land in question who is legitimately acknowledged to be occupant by revenue authorities. The N.A. Permission under section 65 cannot be said to be in any manner conferring and or abridging title of any one if it exists in the land in question. It is merely an act of granting permission by the authority qua the piece of land in question. In other words it can well be said that the land which was an agricultural land and it was supposed to put up to agricultural purpose, is decided to be freed from restrictions and permitted to be developed. Thus the permission is attached to the land in question and not to the person. Therefore in my view the interpretation of section 65 of the Code cannot be said to be in any manner rendering it to be adversarial proceedings at all. 21. Bearing the aforesaid proposition of law in mind when one examines the aspect of appeal preferred by the contesting respondents, one would find it difficult to accept as to how the right to appeal is said to have been conferred upon a third party who has failed in establishing any right before the civil court so far as the land in question is concerned. When the party has not obtained any order or has not been successful in obtaining any order in any manner from civil court, which is competent, i.e. only court to adjudicate upon and acknowledged their rights and title in the land in question, that party cannot be permitted to throw spanner in the wheels of development set in motion by the legitimate competent authority, whose entry is there in the revenue record. Therefore the appeal itself from the point of view of locus was also not obtained.” 23. Yet in another decision of this Court in the case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani (supra), in paragraph 39, this Court has held and observed that considering the language contained in Section 65, the key word is the occupant of the land, and it is sufficient for the purpose of Section 65 that a person, applying for NA permission, is an occupant of the land. It has been held and observed that it is nowhere stated in the said provision that the applicant should have title or ownership over the land, for which, N.A. permission is sought for. Paragraph 39 to 45 read thus:- 39. It has been held and observed that it is nowhere stated in the said provision that the applicant should have title or ownership over the land, for which, N.A. permission is sought for. Paragraph 39 to 45 read thus:- 39. Section 65 of the Code provides for the uses to which an occupant of land for the purpose of agriculture may put his land to. If the occupant of the land wishes to use the land for purposes other than the agriculture or agriculturerelated activities, he is required to make an application to the Collector for permission to do so. It may be noted that the key-word in Section 65 is the occupant of the land. It is sufficient for the purposes of Section 65, that the person applying for NA Permission is an occupant of the land. It is nowhere stated in the said provision that the applicant should have title or ownership over the land for which NA Permission is sought. The legislature, in its wisdom, has thought it fit that it should suffice if an occupant of the land applies for NA Permission. It is not necessary that such person has to prove his title to the land before he makes an application. The present case is on a far better footing. Not only are the petitioners occupants of the land, they are also the owners thereof, by a legal and valid registered Sale Deed. The said sale deed may be a subject matter of challenge before the Civil Court but the fact remains that the Civil Court has not yet passed any decree cancelling the same or declaring it to be illegal or obtained by fraud. 40. Thus, it transpires that, no power is available to the Collector under Section 65 of the Code to examine or conclude regarding the title of the writ applicants over the land in question. A bare reading of the said provision makes it clear that it only provides for the uses to which an occupant of land for agricultural purposes, may put his land to. The provision further lays down the procedure to be followed for making an application for NA Permission by the occupier and the manner in which it is to be processed by the Competent Authority. The provision further lays down the procedure to be followed for making an application for NA Permission by the occupier and the manner in which it is to be processed by the Competent Authority. Nowhere is it contemplated in Section 65 that the Collector is empowered to undertake an inquiry into the title of the occupier. 41. A perusal of the impugned order dated 19th November, 2014 passed by the Collector makes it clear that the reason for the rejection of the application of the writ applicants is that their title to the land in question is defective on the ground that two civil suits are pending. 42. In State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, (1969)2 SCC 187 , the Supreme Court has clearly held as below: "14. We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner should not have gone into question of title. It seems to us that when the title of an occupant is disputed by any party before the Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute is serious the appropriate course for the Collector or the Commissioner would be to refer the parties to a competent Court and not decide the question of title himself against the occupant." 43. This was also a case where the NA Permission under the provisions of Section 65 of the Code was in issue. The above principles of law therefore, squarely apply to the present case. 44. Considering the provisions of Section 65 of the Code as well as the above pronouncement of law by the Supreme Court, this Court cannot but arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the denial of NA Permission to the writ applicants under the garb of a purportedly defective title over the land in question amounts to a transgression of the limits of jurisdiction vested in the second respondent under the Code. The impugned order is, therefore, one without jurisdiction. For such reason also the plea of alternative remedy should fail. 45. In the aforesaid context, let me look into a decision of this Court in the case of Bhayabhai Vajshibhai Hathalia vs. State of Gujarat, 2012 (2) GLR 1741 . I may quote the relevant observations; "20. Thus, from the aforesaid almost indisputable aspects, this Court is called upon to examine the contentions in respect of the order impugned in this petition. I may quote the relevant observations; "20. Thus, from the aforesaid almost indisputable aspects, this Court is called upon to examine the contentions in respect of the order impugned in this petition. Plain reading of section 65 of the Code in my view would persuade the Court to hold that section 65 of the Code does not envisage scope of raising any objection in any party who is not acknowledged right or interest in the land in question. In other words proceedings under section 65 of the Code is not an adversely proceeding at all. If any interested party is apprehending any smart practice on any one in respect of land it can always take recourse to the civil court for obtaining appropriate injunction or prohibitory orders. When the party fails obtaining any appropriate order of injunction or prohibitory order from the competent civil court, then that party, atleast in my view, would not be entitled to seek any prohibitory orders against the person whose name is shown in the revenue record as an occupant. Or else it will lead to a situation where on account of showing semblance of some interest in the land in question or for that matter even substantive interest the party who has not been successful in establishing its right and obtain any prohibitory orders would succeed in thwarting and throatling the occupant of the land in question who is legitimately acknowledged to be occupant by revenue authorities. The N.A. Permission under section 65 cannot be said to be in any manner conferring and or abridging title of any one if it exists in the land in question. It is merely an act of granting permission by the authority qua the piece of land in question. In other words it can well be said that the land which was an agricultural land and it was supposed to put up to agricultural purpose, is decided to be freed from restrictions and permitted to be developed. Thus the permission is attached to the land in question and not to the person. Therefore in my view the interpretation of section 65 of the Code cannot be said to be in any manner rendering it to be adversarial proceedings at all. 21. Thus the permission is attached to the land in question and not to the person. Therefore in my view the interpretation of section 65 of the Code cannot be said to be in any manner rendering it to be adversarial proceedings at all. 21. Bearing the aforesaid proposition of law in mind when one examines the aspect of appeal preferred by the contesting respondents, one would find it difficult to accept as to how the right to appeal is said to have been conferred upon a third party who has failed in establishing any right before the civil court so far as the land in question is concerned. When the party has not obtained any order or has not been successful in obtaining any order in any manner from civil court, which is competent, i.e. only court to adjudicate upon and acknowledge their rights and title in the land in question, that party cannot be permitted to throw spanner in the wheels of development set in motion by the legitimate competent authority, whose entry is there in the revenue record. Therefore the appeal itself from the point of view of locus was also not obtained." 24. In the present case, at the cost of repetition, it is required to be noted that the petitioners are not only the occupants but are having the registered sale deed in their favour, and for which, a suit has been filed but no injunction has been granted. Therefore, once the petitioners are the owners of the land in question, the question that arises now is whether the learned Secretary was right in remanding the matter to the Collector to decide afresh. 25. The learned Secretary, after considering the arguments advanced by both the sides, has stated in paragraph 5.1 about the status and position of the land bearing survey nos.1407/2/A and 1407/2/B. The status has been clearly mentioned of the year 1983- 84, which continued thereafter. Further, in paragraph 5.2, the learned Secretary recorded about the area of the land. In paragraph 5.5, the learned Secretary has taken note of the letter dated 05.11.2020 of the DILR, who, on the basis of the record, had opined that the old survey no.1407/2 is total admeasuring H.0-75-88 sq.mtrs. It is observed that the old survey no.1407/2A/paiki 1 is total admeasuring 2973 sq.mtrs. In paragraph 5.5, the learned Secretary has taken note of the letter dated 05.11.2020 of the DILR, who, on the basis of the record, had opined that the old survey no.1407/2 is total admeasuring H.0-75-88 sq.mtrs. It is observed that the old survey no.1407/2A/paiki 1 is total admeasuring 2973 sq.mtrs. It is further observed that at the level of the mamlatdar, three 7/12 forms were prepared and after re-survey promulgation, there were new three survey numbers carved out being survey no.2383 admeasuring 2333 sq.mtrs., survey no.2384 admeasuring 2931 sq.mtrs. and survey no.2385 admeasuring 1626 sq.mtrs., total area of which, would be around 6890 sq.mtrs. According to the learned Secretary, as per the report of the DILR, there was a reduction of 698 sq.mtrs. which would be around 9.19%. The learned Secretary further observed that the old survey no.1407/2A/paiki 1 was admeasuring 2973 sq.mtrs. which, as per the re-survey promulgation, was assigned the new survey no.2384 admeasuring 2931 sq.mtrs. In the said survey number, there was reduction of 42 sq.mtrs. which could be around 1.41%. The learned Secretary was also of the opinion that internally, in the respective parts, there is a difference of more than 5%. The learned Secretary was therefore, of the opinion that the application of the objectors, after the re-survey promulgation and after correction in the resurvey record, can be considered. The learned Secretary thereafter, in paragraph 5.6, has taken note of the area of survey no.1407/2/B and recorded that in the year 1983-84, the land was admeasuring 0.35 gunthas and as per the revision, the same has been reduced to 0.17 gunthas. The learned Secretary, hence, was of the opinion that the Collector, without considering the said aspect, has passed the order. 26. Essentially, the grievance of the private respondent is that the survey no.1407/2 is not of acre 0.17 gunthas but, was of acre 0.35 gunthas. The fact remains that 0.17 gunthas would be admeasuring 1626 sq.mtrs. which, presently, is the area of survey no.2385. Therefore, when the issue between the parties is of reduction from acre 0.35 gunthas to acre 0.17 gunthas, which change had already taken place in the year 1983-84 and subsequently, vide entry no.5611 dated 08.01.1991, which entry has been certified and not disputed. 27. which, presently, is the area of survey no.2385. Therefore, when the issue between the parties is of reduction from acre 0.35 gunthas to acre 0.17 gunthas, which change had already taken place in the year 1983-84 and subsequently, vide entry no.5611 dated 08.01.1991, which entry has been certified and not disputed. 27. As discussed hereinabove, the entry no.11338 dated 24.06.2021 which is in favour of the private respondent, clearly records the share or the area of survey no.2385 it being 1626 sq.mtrs. and therefore, the observation in paragraph 5.5, for the purpose of remanding the matter, in the prima facie opinion of this Court, was not in the right earnest. In view of the settled legal position and, more particularly, considering the language of Section 65 of the Code and that too, in wake of the registered sale deed executed in the year 2008 and thereafter, in the year 2020, at this stage, it appears to the Court that the Collector did not commit any error in granting NA permission. Hence, the order dated 16.03.2022 of the learned Secretary deserves to be suspended, subject to the out come of Regular Civil Suit No.72 of 2022. 28. One of the contentions raised by learned advocate Mr.Digant Popat is that the petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of suppression of material facts inasmuch as, the petitioners had applied for NA permission; however, the same was disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to cure the defects and to apply afresh; however, the petitioners, neither had challenged the order nor cured the defects and further, passing of the order has not been disclosed, not only before this Court but also, before the Collector, while applying for NA permission. It is therefore, urged that the suppression goes to the root of the mater and only on this count, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 29. Apart from the aforesaid, pertinently, after the order passed by the Collector, disposing of the application and leaving it open to the petitioners to apply afresh after curing the defects, there took place a development i.e. application of the petitioners before the mamlatdar for consolidation and amalgamation of all the four survey numbers, namely, 2380, 2381, 2383 and 2384 and the mamlatdar, after considering the application as well as the documents available on record, has passed the order dated 09.02.2021. As a result of the order dated 09.02.2021, all the four survey numbers have been assigned the new survey no.2380 admeasuring 6551 sq.mtrs. After consolidation, the petitioner had applied for NA permission with respect to the new survey no.2380 admeasuring 6551 sq.mtrs. Therefore, the petitioners had applied with new set of circumstances while the earlier application was only with respect to survey nos.2383 and 2384. Though in the petition, it was expected of the petitioners to have narrated the details; however, the details which have been missed out, were with respect to and limited to the survey nos.2383 and 2384 and not the new survey no.2380. Considering the facts on hand, the judgment relied upon by the learned advocate for the private respondent will be of no aid. 30. Perceptibly, the subject matter of challenge is the order dated 06.03.2022 wherein, there is a specific discussion of the earlier order of the Collector of disposing of the application and the objection by the private respondents, objecting NA permission. Therefore, stricto sensu speaking, in the prima facie opinion of this Court, the non-discloser, considering the facts involved, would not be of such a nature which would entail the dismissal of the writ petition at the admission stage. 31. In view of the abovementioned discussion, the order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the learned Secretary deserves to be suspended and is hereby suspended, subject to the outcome of the Regular Civil Suit No.72 of 2022. It is clarified that the observations made in the present order are limited to proceedings under the provisions of the Code and the proceedings before the Civil Court shall be decided on its own merits and without being influenced by the observations made in the present order. 32. Accordingly, the present civil application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.