JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. Hence, RULE. Learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents – State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 31.03.2023 and 19.06.2023 passed by the Collector, Dahod whereby the petitioner’s application seeking N. A. Permission in respect of Survey/ Block No. 964 paiki 1 of village: Dahod, Taluka : Dahod, District : Dahod was rejected on the ground that the Collector, Dahod has sought guidance from the Revenue Department as there is no proceedings initiated for breach of section 73 AA of the Land Revenue Code and whether to accept the decision of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 02.06.2017 or not? Further vide order dated 31.03.2023, it was stated that there is a financial loss in respect of premium payable in respect of land in question and therefore, the matter was referred to Vigilance Department and therefore, the N. A. Permission was denied to the petitioner. 3. Heard learned advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah appearing for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondents – State. 4. At the outset, learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondents – State submitted that the ground on which the N. A. Permission was rejected exists only partly now as the Revenue Department has already recommended to challenge the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 02.06.2017 and now the mater is pending before the Legal Department and the Government is hopeful of getting permission to challenge the order dated 02.06.2017 and therefore, this Court may not take up the matter today as the respondents authorities are expecting that the permission from the Legal Department will be granted any time soon. 5. Learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah appearing for the petitioners vehemently opposed this request and submitted that after waiting for almost a year after order dated 31.03.2023 was passed still no final permission could be given to challenge the order dated 02.06.2017 and hence, the request is unreasonable. 6. Learned advocate Ms. 5. Learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah appearing for the petitioners vehemently opposed this request and submitted that after waiting for almost a year after order dated 31.03.2023 was passed still no final permission could be given to challenge the order dated 02.06.2017 and hence, the request is unreasonable. 6. Learned advocate Ms. Shah, upon instructions from the petitioners submitted that this Court may hear the petition as the petitioners intend to abide by the final outcome of a proposed petition whereby the State intends to challenge the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Learned advocate Ms. Shah submitted that if that petition is preferred, the same shall not be opposed on the ground that in case if the petitioner succeeds in getting the permission to convert the land into N. A. permission, now the land is converted into N. A. land and therefore, the laws related to the agricultural land would cease to operate in respect of N. A. Land. However, she states that rest of the grounds available to the petitioner like delay or equity having been created in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners shall keep all their rights and contentions open to challenge such petition, in case, if the permission is granted by the State Government. 7. In view of above statement made by learned advocate Ms. Shah for the petitioners, the matter was taken up by this Court considering the fact that the order that the Government seeks to challenge was passed on 02.06.2017 and till date, no permission to challenge that order has been received by the office of the Government Pleader, even after almost seven years after the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal passed such order. 8. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are stated as under:- 8.1.The land bearing Revenue Survey No. 964 situated at Village: Telsar, Taluka District : Dahod was originally owned by one Sarafali Ishabhai who died on 24.04.1959 for which Heirship Mutation Entry was mutated vide Entry No. 5158 and the same was certified on 01.12.1959. Thereafter, the Safkathusain Sarafali was also died on 03.01.1977 and thereafter, his wife Asmaben and children Mikailbhai Habibaben and Malekaben became the owners of the land in question. Thereafter, the Safkathusain Sarafali was also died on 03.01.1977 and thereafter, his wife Asmaben and children Mikailbhai Habibaben and Malekaben became the owners of the land in question. Thereafter, in respect of Tenancy Case No. 449 of 2001, the Mamlatdar and Krushi Panch, Dahod vide order dated 01.06.1962 closed the inquiry on the ground that the owner of the land is widow and thereafter, in Tenancy Case No. 419 of 1975, the Mamlatdar and Krushi Panch, Dahod vide order dated 17.05.1976 fixed the price of the land under section 32 (G) of the Tenancy Act in favour of the ancestors of one deceased Panglabhai Gajiyabhai Ninama and other persons vide Mutation Entry No. 10880 dated 05.08.1976 in the revenue record, the aforesaid order was given effect. 8.2. The order dated 17.05.1976 passed in Tenancy Case No. 419 of 1975 was challenged by the legal heirs and representative of deceased Sarafali Isabhai Lenwala before the Deputy Collector, Dahod by way of Tenancy Appeal No.2 of 2014 alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay and the same was dismissed by the Deputy Collector vide order dated 07.04.2016 in Tenancy Appeal No. 2 of 2014. 8.3.The aforesaid order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal No. 2 of 2014 was challenged before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by legal heirs of deceased Sarafali Ishabhai on the ground that the Mamlatdar and ALT, Dahod has ignored the provisions of Section 32 (F) and section 88-C of the Tenancy Act and the purchase price was fixed and hence, the order is illegal. However, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 02.06.2017 allowed the revision application and quashed and set aside the order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the Deputy Collector and Prant Officer, Dahod in Tenancy Appeal No. 2 of 2014 and order dated 17.05.1976 passed in Tenancy Case No. 419 of 1975 by the Mamlatdart and ALT, Dahod on the ground that after the order dated 01.06.1962 was passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Dahod in Tenancy Case No. 449 of 2001 closing the inquiry on the ground that the land owner is widow, certificate under section 88 -C of the Tenancy Act was issued in favour of grandmother of the applicants on 15.02.1962 and therefore, the provisions of Sections 32 to 32 (R) would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. 9. 9. Be that as it may, the record indicates that some of the respondents preferred a Review Application in the aforesaid revision application against the order dated 02.06.2017 being Revision Application No. TEN/C/4 of 2018 and the same was withdrawn vide order dated 27.07.2018. 10. In the meantime, the petitioners purchased the land in question by way of two registered sale deeds bearing Entry Nos. 1584 and 1585 dated 18.05.2018 for which the Mutation Entry Nos. 30903 and 30904 were mutated and thereafter, after challenged to the aforesaid entries, after RTS proceedings, above entries are certified. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for N. A. Permission on 04.02.2023. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 31.03.2023 and once again the petitioners made an application for N. A. on 05.05.2023 which was again rejected vide order dated 19.06.2023 and therefore, being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders, this petition is preferred. 11. Learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah appearing for the petitioners submitted that the last order whereby the petitioners’ application seeking N. A. Permission was rejected vide order dated 19.06.2023 on the ground that no proceedings seems to have initiated under section 73 AA of the Land Revenue Code and the Government intends to challenge the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. She submitted that till the date of order i.e. 19.06.2023, even after six years after the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal passed the order and even after withdrawal of the Review Application from Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 27.07.2018 even after four years thereafter also, the Government has not taken a decision whether to challenge the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal or not and therefore, such long delay in taking decision on the part of the Government is adversely affecting the petitioners and therefore, the reason for which the petitioners’ N. A. application has been rejected, cannot be said to be relevant or in any way valid reasons for denying the N. A. Permission. Ms. Shah submitted that the ground on which the N. A. Permission is rejected is absolutely irrelevant as it is a matter of coordination relates between two wings of Government and for inaction on the part of the Government, the petitioners could not have been made to suffer by rejecting the N. A. permission. 12. Except the aforesaid submission, no other submissions were made by learned advocate Ms. 12. Except the aforesaid submission, no other submissions were made by learned advocate Ms. Shah. 13. Learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondents – State vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that today the Revenue Department has already recommended to challenge the order dated 02.06.2017. He submitted that now only formal permission to challenge the order dated 02.06.2017 is required to be issued by the Legal Department and therefore, the permission has rightly been denied by the Collector, Dahod while rejecting the petitioners’ application for N. A. Permission. 13.1. Learned AGP Mr. Kanara submitted that the permission has been denied just to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings as according to the State Government, the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is required to be challenged. However, till date, since the permission to challenge the order was not granted by the Revenue Department, the things were not clear but now since the permission was granted by the Revenue Department, this Court may not interfere with the order passed by the Collector, Dahod as the petitioners’ application has not been rejected by considering the merits of the matter but only on the ground that guidance is sought to challenge the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. 13.2. Learned AGP Mr. Kanara also pointed out from the order dated 31.03.2023 that one of the reason for denying the petitioners’ N.A. permission was that the Government was considering the aspect about loss of premium and the matter was pending before the Vigilance Department at the relevant point of time. 13.3. Learned AGP submitted that any financial loss to the Government would be a loss to public exchequer and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the order passed by the Collector as the same is passed just with a view to protect the interest of public exchequer. 13.4. By making the above submissions, he prayed for dismissal of this petition. 14. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. 15. I am conscious about that fact that now the Revenue Department has already granted permission to challenge the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and therefore, the matter is required to be considered keeping in mind the aforesaid aspect but when learned advocate Ms. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. 15. I am conscious about that fact that now the Revenue Department has already granted permission to challenge the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and therefore, the matter is required to be considered keeping in mind the aforesaid aspect but when learned advocate Ms. Shah appearing for the petitioners has made a categorical statement, upon instructions, that in case if any permission for converting the land into N. A. Land is granted and in the meantime or thereafter, if on account of permission to challenge the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is challenged before this Court, in that case, the petitioners shall not object to the aforesaid petition on the ground that now status of land is changed into N. A. land and therefore, the laws applicable to the agricultural land will not be applicable to the land of the petitioners as the N.A. permission has already been granted. Since, the aforesaid statement takes care of interest of the Government. More so, because even if the Collector, Dahod deems it appropriate to grant N.A. Permission, the same would not affect the challenge of the State Government to the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. I am of the view that the consideration about waiting for Government’s approval to challenge the aforesaid order for seven years and to withheld or deny the permission for conversion of land into N.A. land on that ground only is unreasonable. 16. As far as the other grounds stated in the order dated 31.03.2023 is concerned, as far as the fact that the land is restricted tenure land under section 43 of the Tenancy Act or not is a subject matter of litigation which was decided vide order dated 02.06.2017 by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and therefore, the said ground also would not be available to the respondent – State, in view of statement made by learned advocate Ms. Shah, upon instructions. Now only the ground that is available to the State is loss of premium alleged by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ application on 31.03.2023. 17. At this juncture, it was pointed by the learned advocate Ms. Shah that all that is stated in the order dated 31.03.2023 that one Mr. Shah, upon instructions. Now only the ground that is available to the State is loss of premium alleged by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ application on 31.03.2023. 17. At this juncture, it was pointed by the learned advocate Ms. Shah that all that is stated in the order dated 31.03.2023 that one Mr. Harun Abdul Salam Patel has represented before the Vigilance Department about loss of premium. If the aforesaid position was existing on 31.03.2023, today, there is no instructions coming forward as to what happened to aforesaid application made by the said Harun Abdul Salam Patel to the Vigilance Department but if on account of any pending application by a third party before any authority is considered and on that account, if N. A. permission is denied to any person than it will give leverage to the people having vested interest to make applications after applications before various authorities and thereafter, to cite it as an obstacle to consider the application for N. A. Permission on the ground of pendency of their application. 18. I would have taken a different view had the Government on its own referred the matter to Vigilance Department but the order dated 31.03.2023 indicates the application before the Vigilance Department is made by some third party and not by the Government upon observing some irregularity in the proceedings. Merely, because some application is pending at the behest of some third party before the Vigilance Department, the same could not have been a ground to deny the N. A. Permission in absence of there being any preliminary findings of the Vigilance Department that there is substance in the application of the third party about loss of premium and therefore, until and unless, a prima facie view is formed by the Vigilance Department that there is some substance application made by the third party, merely on the ground of pendency of application before Vigilance Department, the authority was not justified in rejecting the N. A. permission. 19. In view of above discussion, subject to the statement made by the petitioners and subject to prima facie view of the Vigilance Department as the application of third party was pending even almost before a year on 31.03.2023, the Collector, Dahod is required to reconsider the application seeking N. A. permission made by the petitioners. 20. 19. In view of above discussion, subject to the statement made by the petitioners and subject to prima facie view of the Vigilance Department as the application of third party was pending even almost before a year on 31.03.2023, the Collector, Dahod is required to reconsider the application seeking N. A. permission made by the petitioners. 20. Resultanly, the impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside subject to the above observation. The petitioners’ application for N. A. Permission may be considered afresh and if found in order, the Collector, Dahod may grant conditional N. A. Permission subject to final outcome of a petition that may be preferred by the State Government while challenging the order dated 02.06.2017. 21. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.