ORDER : D.N.RAY, J. 1. Having heard Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. A. R. Thacker, learned advocate with Mr. Shivang A. Thacker for the respondent No,1, 1.2 to 1.4 and Mr. Nikhilesh J. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 2.1 The land in dispute, bearing Revenue Survey No. 11, City Survey No. 38, Survey No. 3361, admeasuring 14 acres and 0 gunthas, situated at Mouje Anjar, Taluka and District Kutch (hereinafter referred to as “the said land”), was originally granted on leasehold basis by the erstwhile Ruler of Kutch under an order dated 30.03.1935. The lease was granted for a term of 25 years to one Jadavji Hansraj for the specific purpose of establishing and operating a ginning and processing unit. The grant was subject to certain terms and conditions. It appears from the record that the said Jadavji Hansraj transferred the said land to one Somchand Shankarlal Shah. Subsequently, in the year 1947, the transferee in turn conveyed the land to Premchand Vrajlal Shah. Thereafter, in the year 1969, Premchand Vrajlal Shah, by way of a gift deed, transferred the said land to Gulabchand Devraj Shah, the father of respondent no. 1 herein. 2.2 On 25.07.1977, the City Survey Superintendent, Anjar, passed an order recognizing Gulabchand Devraj Shah as the permanent leaseholder of the said land. However, the said order was not approved by the State Government on the ground that the land had not been utilized for the purpose for which it had been originally granted under the 1935 lease agreement. Since the ginning mill had remained closed, the authorities considered it a breach of the original lease conditions. Consequently, a case for breach of condition was registered, and a show cause notice dated 24.07.1989 was issued to Gulabchand Shah. Upon consideration of the records, the Collector, Kutch, by order dated 19.01.1990, set aside the order of the City Survey Superintendent dated 25.07.1977 and directed that the said land shall vest in the State Government. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.1990, Gulabchand Shah preferred a revision application before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), being Revision Case No. SRD/JMN/KUTCH/27/1990, which, by order dated 26.11.1990, upheld and confirmed the order of the Collector. Dissatisfied with the said order, Gulabchand Shah approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 6593 of 1991. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.1990, Gulabchand Shah preferred a revision application before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), being Revision Case No. SRD/JMN/KUTCH/27/1990, which, by order dated 26.11.1990, upheld and confirmed the order of the Collector. Dissatisfied with the said order, Gulabchand Shah approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 6593 of 1991. By order dated 30.12.1999, this Court allowed the said petition and quashed the orders dated 19.01.1990 and 26.11.1990 passed by the State Authorities. As a result, respondent no. 1 herein was recognized as the permanent leaseholder of the said land. 2.4 The State Government, being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Learned Single Judge, preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001. However, the said appeal came to be withdrawn by order dated 23.11.2009. 2.5 During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the State Government issued a resolution dated 08.08.2001 for granting leasehold land on ownership basis to the persons holding permanent lease. In view of the said resolution, the respondent no. 1 herein submitted an application dated 02.06.2003 before the State Government, expressing willingness to deposit the requisite premium at the prevailing rate seeking ownership rights on the land in question. 2.6 After consideration of the said representation, reports were submitted and the spot inspection was conducted. On consideration of the report of the Collector, Kutch addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, the State Government vide letter dated 02.05.2006 asked the Collector to send a proposal along with the premium amount. The Deputy Collector, Anjar by communication dated 27.02.2007 gave a positive opinion for allotment of land on the basis of the report submitted by the City Survey Officer. Subsequently, as per the guidelines of the State Government, the matter was referred to the District Land Valuation Committee for determination of the market value of the land. On 29.08.2007, the Committee fixed the price at Rs. 515 per sq. mtr. Based on the said valuation, the Collector, on 20.05.2008, submitted a proposal to the State Government along with the valuation report, thereby arriving at a total value of Rs. 7,73,12,315/-. This development led to the State Government deciding to withdraw Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001. 2.7 Consequently, the State Government, vide communication dated 05.03.2010, directed the Collector, Kutch, to re-determine the prevailing market value. 7,73,12,315/-. This development led to the State Government deciding to withdraw Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001. 2.7 Consequently, the State Government, vide communication dated 05.03.2010, directed the Collector, Kutch, to re-determine the prevailing market value. Accordingly, the Collector initiated proceedings, sought expert opinions, and once again referred the matter to the District Land Valuation Committee, which on 27.03.2012 determined the value at Rs. 19,200/- per sq. mtr., amounting in total to Rs. 2,88,23,37,600/-. This report was forwarded to the State Government on 13.04.2012. 2.8 In view of the policy of the State Government, when valuation exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs, it was required to be considered by the State Level Valuation Committee. Accordingly, the opinion of the Chief Town Planner was sought on 13.06.2012. Pursuant thereto, the Collector, Kutch, by communication dated 10.07.2012, called upon respondent no. 1 herein to indicate whether they were agreeable to pay the premium as per Government policy. 2.9 Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid communication, the respondents preferred Special Civil Application No. 11056 of 2012 before this Court with the following prayers : “(A) To admit petition. (B) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the communication dated 3.4.2012 and 10.7.2012 issued by the respondent no.2-Collector, Kutch, in the interest of justice and allow this petition. (C) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents, their agents and servants to issue order for allotting the land to the petitioners on ownership basis as per the G.R. dtd.08.08.2001 (Annexure 'F') and accept the payment of premium of Rs.7.73,12,315/ for the land which is situated at Anjar as per the premium fixed by the Committee constituted by the Government for the reasons stated in the Memo of Petition and in the interest of justice. (D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the above Special Civil Application to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned communication dated 03.04.2012 and 10.07.2012 of the Collector, Kutch and further be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities to carry out any further procedure pursuant to communication dtd. 03.04.2012 and 10.07.2012. (E) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other appropriate relief as the nature circumstances of the case may require. (F) To award the cost of this petition.” 2.10. 03.04.2012 and 10.07.2012. (E) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other appropriate relief as the nature circumstances of the case may require. (F) To award the cost of this petition.” 2.10. The Learned Single Judge, by oral judgment dated 28.08.2018, partly allowed the petition and quashed the impugned communications issued by the State Authorities. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.08.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11056 of 2012, the appellants have preferred the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that looking to the backdrop of the present case, before independence, the said land was given for a specific purpose, for a specific term and with specific terms and conditions which were admittedly not fulfilled and for the same, an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law was initiated. It was the original petitioners who by way of communication showing willingness to make the payment of premium for regularizing the unauthorized possession, which in view of the prevailing State Policy being communication and therefore, there is no right accrued in the favour of the original petitioners to approach this Court and in that view of the matter also the Learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the Special Civil Application preferred by the original petitioners instead of partly allowing the same. 4. Mr. Shivang A. Thacker, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents categorically opposed the present petition by placing reliance upon the detailed findings of the learned Single Judge in paragraph No. ‘7.1’ which reads as under :- “7.1 From the record, it is clear that from time to time, the petitioners have made requests to the respondent authorities to finalize their application made in the year 2003, but, on account of inaction and lenguor on the part of the respondent authorities, price fixed by the District Land Valuation Committee on 29.08.2007 could not be implemented in time. The Collector, Kutch, vide letter dated 03.06.2004, opined that in view of the Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001 and consent of the petitioners to pay the premium as may be determined by the State Government, Letters Patent Appeal should be withdrawn, but, contrary to the State Litigation Policy, respondent authorities took the decision to withdraw the Letters Patent Appeal, after a lapse of five years from the opinion of the Collector, Kutch and after a lapse of nine years from issuance of Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001. On account of the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, though the petitioners were ready and willing to pay the premium as determined by the District Land Valuation Committee, validity of the price fixed by the District Land Valuation Committee on 29.08.2007 got elapsed and the petitioners are made to suffer. In aforesaid view of the matter, following points have been weighed by the Court: i) by judgment and order dated 30.12.1999 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6593 of 1991 filed by the petitioners, the order dated 25.07.1977 passed by the City Survey Officer, holding the petitioner/s as a permanent lease holder/s, to enter his name in the record and to make necessary amendment in the map, was affirmed. ii) Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001, preferred by the State, challenging the aforesaid judgment and order dated 30.12.1999 came to be withdrawn by the State in view of Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001 for transfer of new tenure land to the old tenure land on premium. iii) the land in question was given by the Ex-Ruler of Kutch in the year 1935 for industrial purpose and is not an agricultural land. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that the land was converted into NA. iv) the petitioners had made applications/representation time and again for transferring the land in the name of the petitioners and they had/have shown their readiness and willingness to pay the required premium as may be decided the State. v) accordingly, the meeting of the District Land Valuation Committee convened on 29.08.2007 and prevalent market price of the land is fixed at Rs.515/- per sq. mtrs. Accordingly, price of the land in question admeasuring 150121 sq. mtrs. (A. 37-04 G) comes to Rs.7,73,12,315/- (Rupees Seven Crore Seventy Three Lakh Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen Only). v) accordingly, the meeting of the District Land Valuation Committee convened on 29.08.2007 and prevalent market price of the land is fixed at Rs.515/- per sq. mtrs. Accordingly, price of the land in question admeasuring 150121 sq. mtrs. (A. 37-04 G) comes to Rs.7,73,12,315/- (Rupees Seven Crore Seventy Three Lakh Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen Only). vi) though the price fixed by the Committee of Rs.7,73,12,315/- was on the higher side at the relevant point of time, the petitioners show/ed their willingness to pay the said price. The copy of letter dated 29.03.2007 of Collector, Kutch, produced by the petitioners, reveals the price of the land in question to be Rs.54.05 per sq.mtr. as per the extracts of non- agriculture sell and as per the Panchroj, the price of the land in question comes to Rs.150/- to Rs.175/-. However, in the case on hand, the price fixed by the Valuation Committee Rs.515/- per sq.mtr., which the petitioners are ready to pay. vii) as per letter dated 14.03.2007 of the Anjar Area Development Authority, in view of the implemented development scheme, land in question falls under the residential zone. As per G.D.C.R. rules, in residential zone, proposed industries is not entitled in residential zone. However, when the said land was allotted for the purpose of Ginning and Pressing Mills on leasehold, there was no development scheme in existence. After earthquake on implementation of development scheme by the Anjar Area Development Authority, land in question falls under residential zone. Therefore, applicants, vide application dated 17.04.2008, requested to allot the land on permanent basis for industrial purpose or residential purpose. viii) the decisions relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader are of no help to the State in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In the case on hand, the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001 has taken a policy decision to convert the new tenure land into old tenure land on premium; the said decision came pending the Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001 preferred by the State, as aforesaid; the said Letters Patent Appeal came to be withdrawn in view of the policy decision of the State Government which is reflected in Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001 consequent thereto, the Letters Patent Appeal came to be withdrawn. Moreover, the opinion of the Hon'ble Minister did not remain opinion only, but it is acted upon by withdrawal of the Letters Patent Appeal. Further, it is the State authority which had decide the premium amount of Rs.7,73,12,315/-, which the petitioners had/have shown willingness to pay the same. ix) it appears to be a glaring example of inaction and unfair attitude on the part of the State by not taking prompt decision despite withdrawal of the Letters Patent Appeal in pursuance to Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001. Not only that, but the inaction on the part of the State by not accepting the premium amount fixed by the District Land Valuation Committee and thereby, procrastinating the matter for such a long period and taking different stands at different times etc., is in contravention to the State Litigation Policy. 5. From the admitted position on record, it will be seen that the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 11, City Survey No. 38, Survey No. 3361 admeasuring 14 Acres and 0 Gunthas of Mouje Anjar, Taluka and District: Kutch, was originally granted on lease basis vide order dated 30.03.1935, for the period of 25 years by the erstwhile Ruler of Kutch for the purpose of ginning and processing to one Jadavji Hansraj and the said lease was granted subject to fulfillment of certain terms and conditions. 5.1 The said Jadavji Hansraj, thereafter sold and transferred the said land to one Somchand Shankarlal Shah who, thereafter, in the year 1947 again sold the said land to one Premchand Vrajlal Shah. 5.2 The said Premchand Vrajlal Shah, thereafter, by way of gift deed transferred the said land to the father of the respondent No.1 herein namely Gulabchand Shah in the year 1969. 6. The predecessor in interest of the original petitioners namely, Gulabbhai Devrajbhai Shah was declared a permanent lessee of the land in question as early as on 25.07.1977 under the order passed by the City Survey Officer. The subsequent proceedings drawn against the predecessor in interest of the original petitioner under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 alleging breach of condition of non-renewal of lease had been brought to its logical end with the judgment and order dated 30.12.1999 passed in the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6593 of 1999 preferred by Late Gulabbhai Devrajbhai Shah (the permanent leaseholder). The Letters Patent Appeal No.529 of 2001 preferred by the State Government has been dismissed as withdrawn vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court on an affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, in view of the Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001. 7. The Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001, promulgated by the State Government during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal provided for ownership rights on leasehold lands to the persons holding permanent lease. The matter has been proceeded for fixation of the premium of the land in question for grant of ownership right to the leaseholder namely, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and the petitioner thereafter, in view of the Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001. 8. As noted hereinbefore, the State Government, in principle, had accepted the proposal for conversion of leasehold rights into the ownership rights in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 08.08.2001 and asked the Collector to send a proposal along with the premium amount vide letter dated 02.05.2006 sent to the Collector, Kachchh by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department of the State Government. The matter could not be brought to its logical conclusion on account of the repeated communications made between the State authorities pertaining to the determination of premium for the land in question. The District Land Valuation Committee had determined the price of the land in question on 29.08.2007 and the State Government, thereafter, had decided to withdraw the Letters Patent Appeal which was withdrawn on 23.11.2009. 9. The learned Single Judge having gone through the original record, has noted that inspite of the repeated request made by the petitioners, the respondent Authorities did not finalize the premium and on account of inaction on the part of the respondent Authorities, the price fixed by the District Land Valuation Committee on 29.08.2007 could not be deposited in time. The Collector, Kachchh, in its letter dated 03.06.2004, had recorded the consent of the petitioners to pay a premium as may be determined by the State Government, in view of the resolution dated 08.08.2001. 10. The Collector, Kachchh, in its letter dated 03.06.2004, had recorded the consent of the petitioners to pay a premium as may be determined by the State Government, in view of the resolution dated 08.08.2001. 10. It is, thus, held by the learned Single Judge that on account of the inaction on the part of the respondent Authorities, though the petitioners were ready and willing to pay the premium as determined by the District Land Valuation Committee, the validity of the price fixed by the District Land Valuation Committee on 29.08.2007 lapsed and the petitioner was asked to pay higher premium by the subsequent communications dated 03.04.2012 and 10.07.2012, which deserved to be quashed. 11. While setting aside the said communications, it was held by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner is required to pay premium for the period from 30.08.2007 to 23.11.2009, the period between the fixation of price by the District Land Valuation Committee and withdrawal of Letters Patent Appeal, besides that an additional amount, if any, be determined as per the prevalent policy of the State in this regard on the price determined by the District Land Valuation Committee as on 29.08.2007 to the tune of Rs.7,73,12,315/-. Besides that, the rent of the land in question for the period from 1969 to realization of the land in question, if on verification of the relevant records is found outstanding towards the petitioner, the Government is at liberty to recover the same as per its policy with interest, however, the same shall be after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 12. Taking note of the above, we do not find any error in the decision of the learned Single Judge in quashing the communications dated 03.04.2012 and 10.07.2012 and issuing directions to the respondent Authorities to determine the price of the land as noted hereinabove and accept the same accordingly, to allot the land in question to the petitioners on ownership basis. Other prayers made by the petitioner for grant of permission for construction of the house and for sanctioning of the as per Town Planning Scheme Anjar (Kachchh) and GDCR have been directed to be dealt with in accordance with law. 13. Other prayers made by the petitioner for grant of permission for construction of the house and for sanctioning of the as per Town Planning Scheme Anjar (Kachchh) and GDCR have been directed to be dealt with in accordance with law. 13. In view of the above, the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State appellant to assail the judgment and order impugned on the premise of violation of terms and conditions of the original lease on the part of the predecessor in interest of the original petitioner cannot be sustained. There is no question of going back to examine the issue which has been set at rest with the judgment and order dated 30.12.1999 passed in Special Civil Application No.6593 of 1991 by this Court and with the withdrawal of the Letters Patent Appeal No.529 of 2001 filed by the State Government. 14. In view of the above, the present appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merits. Consequently, pending civil application(s) stands disposed of. No order as to costs.