JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order/communication dated 11.1.2023 passed by the District Collector, Kheda rejecting the petitioner's application for converting the land into non agricultural land on the ground that there is no clarity about whether the restrictions under Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 would be applicable in respect of land in question and whether any premium is required to be levied in respect of such conversion or not. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Darshan M. Varandani appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondent - State. 3. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. Hence, RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent - State. 4. The brief facts as stated by learned advocate Mr. Varandani are as under:- 4.1 The dispute pertains to a land situated at village Lakhavad Party, Taluka Nadiad (City), District Kheda bearing Survey No.1171/B/2. According to the petitioner on 12.9.1960, the land bearing Survey No.1171/B was purchased by Jaydevbhai Ghanshyambhai Patel who happens to be the grandfather of the petitioner by way of a registered sale deed from original owner of the land Bai Ganga widow of Patel Nathabhai Kushalbhai vide sale deed No.1093/1060. In respect of the aforesaid sale from the pleadings it seems that some proceedings under the Tenancy Act had taken place and the Mamlatdar and ALT vide order dated 11.10.1963 in Tenancy Case No.425 of 1963 passed some order in favour of tenant Chaganbhai Sankarbhai. 4.2 As per the pleadings, being aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.1963, Tenancy Appeal No.110 of 1989 was preferred under Section 74 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act by Jaydevbhai Ghanshyambhai Patel who happens to be the grandfather of the petitioner and the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and Appeal vide order dated 7.12.1990 held that the order dated 11.10.1963 was contrary to the provisions of Tenancy Act and therefore, the same was set aside and for which the mutation entry No.12876 was mutated in favour of the grandfather of the petitioner on 29.1.1992. 4.3 Thereafter, according to the petitioner in the year 2010, father of the petitioner made an application under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 seeking N.A. permission and vide order dated 10.6.2010 the Collector, Kheda sought opinion from the Mamlatdar and ALT, Nadiad, upon inquiry as to whether there are any restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act or not. 4.4 At the relevant point time, in the year 2010, instead of giving the aforesaid opinion, the Mamlatdar and ALT initiated a proceedings vide Tenancy Case No.29 of 2010 and vide order dated 15.3.2011, the sale dated 12.9.1960 was regularized on the ground that the sale was between tenant and land owner and hence, there would be restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. 4.5 The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and the matter was remanded back. According to the petitioner after two rounds of litigation, ultimately, when the matter was remanded back to the Mamlatdar and ALT to consider the aforesaid issue, ultimately, in Tenancy Case No.1 of 2016 vide order dated 30.8.2016, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Nadiad passed an order and held that it was a transfer between the tenant and landlord and hence, restrictions of Section 43 would apply. 4.6 The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms by way of Tenancy Revision Case No.20 of 2018 and ultimately, he succeeded as vide order dated 21.8.2018, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and Appeal, Kheda-Nadiad quashed and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Nadiad dated 30.8.2016 in Tenancy Case No.1 of 2016. According to the petitioner, the said order has become final and there is no further challenge to the aforesaid order by either side. 4.7 In this background, the petitioner preferred an application seeking permission under Section 65 to convert the land into N.A. land. Such application earlier also was made in the year 2019, in respect of half of the portion of the land and the said permission was granted by the authority vide order dated 3.5.2019. 4.7 In this background, the petitioner preferred an application seeking permission under Section 65 to convert the land into N.A. land. Such application earlier also was made in the year 2019, in respect of half of the portion of the land and the said permission was granted by the authority vide order dated 3.5.2019. 4.8 Again for remaining portions of land, the petitioner made an application seeking permission to convert the remaining portion of land into N.A. land vide application dated 18.10.2022 and the aforesaid application was rejected by the Collector, Kheda on the ground that the petitioner has purchased the land in question after 1.8.1956 and therefore, whether the restrictions of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act would be applicable in respect of land in question or not and whether any premium is required to be levied upon such conversion or not. The Collector rejected by putting a question mark over both the aforesaid aspect rather than forming any opinion and by keeping the aforesaid aspect unanswered, without arriving at any conclusion, he rejected the petitioner's application seeking conversion of land into N.A. land and therefore, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Darshan Varandani appearing for the petitioner submitted that whether there are restrictions of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act would be applicable in respect of land in question or not is the issue which has already attained finality in Tenancy Revision Application No.20 of 2018 vide order dated 21.8.2018. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms has already quashed and set aside the order dated 30.8.2016 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Nadiad in Tenancy Case No.1 of 2016. Learned advocate Mr. Darshan Varandani submitted that thereafter, the aforesaid order has not been challenged by any of the party including the State and the same has attained finality. Once the restrictions under Section 43 would not be applicable in respect of land in question, the question of levying any premium would not arise according to learned advocate Mr. Darshan Varandani and therefore, according to learned advocate Mr. Darshan Varandani the authority viz. Once the restrictions under Section 43 would not be applicable in respect of land in question, the question of levying any premium would not arise according to learned advocate Mr. Darshan Varandani and therefore, according to learned advocate Mr. Darshan Varandani the authority viz. Collector was absolutely unjustified in pausing such questions and leaving it unanswered, without forming any opinion and on the basis of that without arriving at any conclusion, when the Collector rejected the petitioner's application only on the basis of some unanswered questions, the said order is absolutely illegal order and the questions which are paused and left unanswered by the Collector, had the Collector tried to gather information about the land in question from the office of the Collector, Kheda himself he would find answers of all the aforesaid questions, as the aforesaid question was decided very recently in the year 2018, by the Deputy Collector in the tenancy proceedings. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Varandani submitted that had the Collector called the petitioner and sought such details, the petitioner also would have given such details by providing the orders which the petitioner has already annexed along with the petition but it seems that just to hide the inaction on the part of subordinates, the aforesaid questions were left unanswered and without forming any opinion in very casual manner, the petitioner's application for grant of N.A. permission was rejected and therefore, learned advocate Mr.Varandani submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded back with a direction to the Collector to consider the petitioner's application, keeping in mind the earlier order, which are part of this petition and which are already referred to in foregoing paragraph. 5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Varandani submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the Collector with the direction to him to decide the petitioner's application seeking N.A. permission afresh within some time bound schedule. 5.3 According Learned advocate Mr. Varandani, all the subordinates officer also opined positively in respect of petitioner's application for grant of N.A. permission. However, learned Collector ignored everything and passed the impugned order. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. 5.3 According Learned advocate Mr. Varandani, all the subordinates officer also opined positively in respect of petitioner's application for grant of N.A. permission. However, learned Collector ignored everything and passed the impugned order. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondent - State vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that considering the fact that the sale had taken placed in the year 1960, the Collector was justified in pausing the question to examine whether the restrictions under Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act would apply in respect of land in question or not. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara could not point out to indicate that at any point of time, any exercise was carried by the office of the Collector, to place on record the aforesaid aspect, which was very much decided by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and held that the restrictions of Section 43 would not apply in respect of land in question. 6.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara also could not justify the action of the Collector whereby instead of arriving at a conclusion he rejected the application of the petitioner for N.A. permission by leaving the questions open and unanswered. 6.2 However, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara prayed for dismissal of the petition by submitting that the order passed by the Collector is absolutely just, legal and proper, as the Collector has acted in accordance with law and there is nothing wrong and due care is taken in verifying the status of the land. 7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I found that after series of litigation, ultimately in the year 2018, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Kheda- Nadiad has passed an order specifying that in respect of sale of land in question in favour of the petitioner, no provisions of Tenancy Act would be applicable. Once there is a specific finding in respect of the sale transaction above by none other than the Deputy Collector Land Reforms is there and the same after having attaining finality as the aforesaid order has not been challenged by any of the respondents nor learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Kanara could point out that even the Government has challenged the aforesaid order. Kanara could point out that even the Government has challenged the aforesaid order. The Collector was not justified in rejecting the application made by the petitioner by pausing the question once again as to whether there would be any restrictions of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act would be applicable in respect of land in question or not. Further, if the authority has any doubt about the applicability of any law or whether such conversion into N.A. would be subject to any premium or not, the authority can always seek opinion from the Subordinate Officers or from the other Competent Authority but it is not expected from the Authority to reject the petitioner's application on account of their own failure to get the instructions or opinion from the Subordinate Authority or from the Competent Authority and then to reject the application just with a view to see that the timeline to decide the N.A. application is met with, and any how the matter is disposed of. 8. In view of above, as the petitioner has successfully demonstrated before this Court by way of documentary evidence which could not be disputed by the State that there are no provisions related to Tenancy Act applicable in respect of land in question. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Collector, Kheda dated 11.1.2023 being erroneous order is required to be quashed and set aside and the same is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Collector, Kheda for considering the petitioner's application afresh in accordance with law and within the time limit prescribed under the Act with a direction to consider the petitioner's case in light of the orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Kheda in respect of tenancy proceedings and in light of the observations made by this Court. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.