JUDGMENT : Sangeeta K. Vishen, J. By way of the captioned writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.08.1989 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Bhavnagar; order dated 23.04.1990 passed by the Deputy Collector, Bhavnagar; and order dated 19.04.2005 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts are that the land bearing survey no.226 paiki admeasuring 8 acres 0 gunthas (hereinafter referred to as ‘the land in question’) originally belonged to Shri Bhikhabhai Jinabhai, the account holder which was pursuant to the order dated 18.11.1969 passed by the Mamlatdar, Bhavnagar in Tenancy Case no.716/1968. Certificate was issued under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1948’) with necessary entry no.923 dated 21.11.1969, posted in the revenue record. In the year 1972, the original owner – tenant had executed a registered sale deed dated 22.03.1972 in favour of Haribhai Ghusabhai for consideration of Rs.12,000/- and entry no.1096 dated 10.06.1972 was posted in the revenue record. After almost 11 years, notice dated 02.04.1988 came to be issued under the provisions of Section 84C of the Act of 1948 which culminated into passing of the order dated 17.08.1989 by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Bhavnagar unsuccessfully challenged before the Deputy Collector. In the revision the Tribunal, dismissed the revision by passing an order dated 19.04.2005 and hence, the captioned writ petition. 3. Mr Deepak N. Khanchandani, learned advocate for the petitioners, at the outset, submitted that the issue now lies in a very narrow compass, in view of the order dated 09.10.2007 passed by this Court wherein, liberty was given to the petitioners to approach the Collector with a request to grant ex post facto sanction and the Collector, was further directed to consider the same in light of the fact that the petitioners, are ready and willing to pay the amount of premium payable in 1972. 3.1 It is submitted that immediately, thereafter, on 12.10.2007, the petitioners approached the Collector with a request to determine the premium as per the existing Jantri. Thereafter, in the interregnum, no steps could be taken either at the end of the petitioners or at the end of the Collector and therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file Civil Application no.1 of 2021, seeking direction. Thereafter, in the interregnum, no steps could be taken either at the end of the petitioners or at the end of the Collector and therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file Civil Application no.1 of 2021, seeking direction. Reminder letter was addressed to the Collector on 03.03.2023, reiterating the request of deciding the application. After that this Court, has passed an order dated 14.06.2023 requiring the authorities to take a decision. Subsequent thereto on 22.08.2023, order has been passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Bhavnagar wherein, the petitioners were directed to deposit 25% of the market value, i.e. Rs.64,75,000/-, which they did on 17.07.2023 and for which, requisite challan has been issued by the concerned treasury. 3.2 It is submitted that the Collector; however, has disposed of the application on the ground that the petitioners, have not deposited the amount of Rs.2,40,87,000/- towards the conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture. It is submitted that the petitioners, at this stage, are not desirous of converting the land from agriculture to non-agriculture for which, requisite affidavit has also been filed, declaring before this Court that the petitioners would be using the land for agriculture purpose and are ready and willing to pay the premium. As and when the petitioners intend to use the said land for the non-agriculture purpose. It is therefore, submitted that the petitioners are also ready and willing to see that necessary entry in the revenue record is posted, requiring the petitioners to pay an amount of premium for conversion from agriculture to non-agriculture in future. It is therefore, urged that the petition may be disposed of accordingly. 4. Mr Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that after the order passed by this Court dated 09.10.2007 as well as 14.06.2023, necessary proposal was sent to the State Government in its Revenue Department and the Revenue Department, has given its approval on 26.06.2023. As per the permission of the State Government, premium was to be charged for conversion from agriculture to agriculture, so also for converting the land to non-agriculture use. In other words, premium was directed to be charged twice for both the conversion. As the petitioners have only deposited an amount of Rs.64,75,000/- for converting the land from agriculture to agriculture and not for agriculture to non-agriculture, that the application was filed. In other words, premium was directed to be charged twice for both the conversion. As the petitioners have only deposited an amount of Rs.64,75,000/- for converting the land from agriculture to agriculture and not for agriculture to non-agriculture, that the application was filed. 4.2 It is submitted that since the petitioners have already deposited an amount for conversion from agriculture to agriculture; in absence of any deposit of the premium for conversion from agriculture to non-agriculture, that the decision was not taken. It is submitted that now the petitioners have declared on oath before this Court, that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the premium amount at the time of converting the land from agriculture to non-agriculture as per the prevalent market value, necessary order be passed. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the documents available on record. 6. As stated herein above, challenge is to the orders dated 17.08.1989, 23.04.1990 as well as 19.04.2005 passed by the Mamalatdar & ALT, Deputy Collector and the Tribunal respectively. It is also not in dispute that the registered sale deed was executed in the year 1972. Necessary entry no.1096 dated 10.06.1972 was posted in the revenue record, which has been certified on 28.02.1973. As per the endorsement in the remarks column, it has been recorded that the purchaser is account holder and the necessary certificate has been placed on record. 7. As is discernible from the record the notice for initiating the proceedings under Section 84C of the Act of 1948 came to be issued only in the year 1983, i.e. almost after a period of 11 years of the mutation of the entry and transaction was declared as null and void. Be that as it may. The order of the Mamlatdar, was subject matter of challenge before the Deputy Collector who, dismissed the appeal by passing an order dated 23.04.1990, which was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal and it, has passed an order dated 19.04.2005, rejecting revision application and thereby, both the orders dated 17.08.1989 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT as well as order dated 23.04.1990 passed by the Deputy Collector, stood confirmed. 8. Writ petition was filed and during the pendency , this Court, has passed an order dated 09.10.2007, which reads thus:- “Heard Mr.Nikhil Karial with Mr.Nirzar S. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner. 8. Writ petition was filed and during the pendency , this Court, has passed an order dated 09.10.2007, which reads thus:- “Heard Mr.Nikhil Karial with Mr.Nirzar S. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner. Rule returnable on 9th January 2008. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner shall approach the Collector with a request to grant ex post facto sanction, which the Collector shall consider in light of the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the amount of premium payable in 1972 along with reasonable rate of interest since 1972. The petitioner to approach the Collector within two weeks from today. The Collector to consider and decide the same in accordance with law, in light of the prevailing Government policy, as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 31st December 2007.” The said order has been accepted by the parties and has not been challenged before the higher forum and has attained finality. 9. Clearly, the liberty was given to the petitioners to approach the Collector with a request to grant ex post facto section, with a further direction to the Collector to consider the same in light of the fact that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the amount of premium payable in the year 1972 together with reasonable rate of interest. Therefore, as per the order, direction was only for regularising the transaction of the year 1972; but, not for conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agriculture. 10. Discernibly, the petitioners on 12.10.2007, have submitted an application. After narrating the proceedings and the order passed by this Court, ready and willing was shown to pay the premium at the rate prevailing in the year 1972, so also the interest. Assurance was extended that the petitioners shall deposit the amount within the stipulated period. Until the year 2023, no steps were taken and therefore, the petitioners through its power of attorney, submitted a letter dated 03.03.2023, addressed to the Collector pointing out that no decision has been taken on the application dated 12.10.2007. Request was also made that considering the introduction of the new Jantri with effect from 15.04.2023, premium may be determined as per the prevalent rate. The petitioners had declared that they are ready and willing to pay premium for conversion from agriculture to agriculture and also for non-agriculture purpose. Request was also made that considering the introduction of the new Jantri with effect from 15.04.2023, premium may be determined as per the prevalent rate. The petitioners had declared that they are ready and willing to pay premium for conversion from agriculture to agriculture and also for non-agriculture purpose. In absence of any steps taken, in the interregnum, petitioners filed an application being Civil Application no.1 of 2021, inter alia, praying for direction to the respondent authorities to comply with the order passed by this Court dated 09.10.2007. On 14.06.2023, the matter was heard and this Court, has passed the following order:- [1] Learned advocate Mr. Deepak Khanchandani for the petitioners submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order on 9th October 2007: “Heard Mr.Nikhil Karial with Mr.Nirzar S. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner. Rule returnable on 9th January 2008. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner shall approach the Collector with a request to grant ex post facto sanction, which the Collector shall consider in light of the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the amount of premium payable in 1972 along with reasonable rate of interest since 1972. The petitioner to approach the Collector within two weeks from today. The Collector to consider and decide the same in accordance with law, in light of the prevailing Government policy, as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 31st December 2007.” [2] Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 9th October 2007, the petitioners have approached the Collector by way of an application dated 12th October 2007, which was received by the office of the Collector on 15th October 2007, requesting, inter alia, to fix the amount of premium. [3] Although the Collector was directed by this Court to take decision on or before 31st December 2007, till today, no decision whatsoever has been taken. Despite that, the petitioners again moved an application before the Collector on 3rd March 2023 for fixing the premium. [4] Learned AG.P. Mr. Pranav Dhagat stated that the said application has been forwarded to the Revenue Department, Gandhinagar on 7th March 2023 for appropriate decision. [5] Be that as it may, admittedly, the interim order dated 9th October 2007 passed by this Court remains uncomplied with till today. [4] Learned AG.P. Mr. Pranav Dhagat stated that the said application has been forwarded to the Revenue Department, Gandhinagar on 7th March 2023 for appropriate decision. [5] Be that as it may, admittedly, the interim order dated 9th October 2007 passed by this Court remains uncomplied with till today. However, as a last chance, so as to comply with the aforesaid interim order, this matter is adjourned to 28th June 2023. [6] It is clarified that before the next date of hearing, if the interim order is not complied with, the Revenue Secretary, State of Gujarat as well as the Collector, Bhavnagar shall have to remain personally present before this Court on 28th June 2023. [7] A copy of this order be provided to learned A.G.P. Mr. Pranav Dhagat for its onward communication.” 11. Apropos the order passed by this Court, the proposal appears to have been sent to the State Government in its Revenue Department which in turn, has granted the sanction on 26.06.2023. Since the petitioners had expressed their willingness to pay the premium for conversion from agriculture to agriculture and also for conversion from agriculture to non-agriculture, that the State Government has ordered for charging of the premium by conversion from agriculture to agriculture and also for conversion from agriculture to non-agriculture. The market value of land was determined as Rs.2,59,00,000/-, 25% of which was Rs.64,75,000/-, which was informed to the petitioners and they have deposited the same, and necessary challan has also been issued. The issue arose when the petitioners, did not pay the amount of premium for conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose. 12. The petitioners have filed an affidavit stating that at present, they are not desirous of converting the land from agriculture to non-agriculture; however, the petitioners are ready to pay the premium for the use of the land for non-agricultural purpose as and when the petitioners intend to use the land for non-agricultural purpose. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the additional affidavit of one Bharatbhai M. Patel, power of attorney holder of the petitioners, read thus:- “5. I say that thereafter the Petitioners herein deposited an amount of Rs. 64,75,000/- towards the premium for use of land for agricultural purpose on 17/07/2023. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the additional affidavit of one Bharatbhai M. Patel, power of attorney holder of the petitioners, read thus:- “5. I say that thereafter the Petitioners herein deposited an amount of Rs. 64,75,000/- towards the premium for use of land for agricultural purpose on 17/07/2023. I say that as on today the Petitioners herein are using the said land for an agricultural purpose and the Petitioners are ready and willing to pay the premium for use of land for non-agricultural purpose as and when the Petitioners intends to use the said land for nonagricultural purpose. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-R-5 to this Affidavit in Reply is the copy of the challan dated 17/07/2023. I say that vide letter dated 22/08/2023 the Collector, Bhavnagar herein had informed the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department that earlier it was decided to give the land in question to the Petitioners by collecting 25% premium towards the use of land for agricultural purpose and 40% premium towards the use of land for non-agricultural purpose. It was further stated in the said letter that the Petitioners had paid the premium towards the use of land for agricultural purpose however since the Petitioners has not paid the premium towards the use of land for non-agricultural purpose and hence their online application was rejected. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-R-6 to this Affidavit in Reply is the copy of the letter dated 22/08/2023. 6. I say that as on today the Petitioners herein are using the said land for an agricultural purpose and the Petitioners are ready and willing to pay the premium for use of land for nonagricultural purpose as and when the Petitioners intends to use the said land for non-agricultural purpose. I say that the decision of the Collector, Bhanagar to reject the application of the Petitioners on the ground that the Petitioners has not paid the premium towards the use of land for non-agricultural purpose is not valid. I further say that while making an application online the Petitioners by mistake applised for paying the premium for non-agricultural purpose also. I say that the decision of the Collector, Bhanagar to reject the application of the Petitioners on the ground that the Petitioners has not paid the premium towards the use of land for non-agricultural purpose is not valid. I further say that while making an application online the Petitioners by mistake applised for paying the premium for non-agricultural purpose also. However by way of this affidavit the Petitioners makes their stand clear that at present the Petitioner wants use the said land for an agricultural purpose only and in the future the Petitioners wants to use the said land for non-agricultural Purposes then the Petitioners are ready and willing to pay the premium for use of land for non-agricultural purpose. 7. I say that in view of the above the Petitioner humbly request the Hon'ble Court to kindly issue the direction to the Respondents authorities to comply with the directions passed by this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 09/10/2007 and 14/06/2023.” 13. Therefore, the petitioners at present are not desirous of getting the land converted from agriculture to non-agriculture and have expressed their willingness to pay the amount of premium as and when the petitioners desire to convert the land from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose. Hence, for conversion from agriculture to non-agriculture, the authorities, will be at liberty to put necessary remarks and/or entry in the revenue record about the land being liable to payment of premium for the purpose of non-agriculture. 14. It goes without saying that the petitioners shall abide by the statement made before this Court and in no case, the land shall be used for the purpose of non-agriculture without the payment of the premium as per the prevalent market value and in case the petitioner fails to do so, the authorities will be at liberty to take steps against the petitioners in accordance with law. Necessary entries shall be posted in the revenue record, regularising the transaction of the year 1972. 15. In view of the above, the grievance raised in the captioned writ petition, would not survive and has been rendered academic. Consequently, the order dated 17.08.1989 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Bhavnagar; order dated 23.04.1990 passed by the Deputy Collector, Bhavnagar; and order dated 19.04.2005 passed by the Tribunal, shall not come in the way of petitioners. 16. The petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Consequently, the order dated 17.08.1989 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Bhavnagar; order dated 23.04.1990 passed by the Deputy Collector, Bhavnagar; and order dated 19.04.2005 passed by the Tribunal, shall not come in the way of petitioners. 16. The petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. 17. In view of the order passed in captioned petition, Civil Application (for direction) does not survive and stands disposed of.