ORDER : (NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.) 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Prateek Bhatia on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader Mr.G.H.Virk with learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Dharitri Pancholi and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.J.K.Shah on behalf of respondent- State. 2. By way of these petitions the petitioners challenge orders dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Collector, Vadodara more particularly whereby applications for grant of NA permission preferred by the present petitioners have been rejected. 3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr.Bhatia and learned AGP Mr. Shah, prima facie it would appear to this Court that order passed by the Collector, Vadodara reflects absolute highhanded attitude on part of the officers of the revenue department when it comes to complying with orders of this Court. To this Court it would appear that the order passed by the Collector being absolutely contemptuous, appropriate action requires to be taken against the officer concerned as well as the former Collector i.e. officer on whose opinion the Collector has relied upon. 4. To elaborate, it appears that the petitioners had originally preferred an application for grant of NA permission with regard to the land in question and whereas, vide orders dated 13.03.2023, the Collector Vadodara had rejected the said applications. It would appear that the said orders had been challenged by the petitioners by preferring writ petitions being Special Civil Applications No. 7053/2023, 7062/2023 and 7093/2023 before this Court. A learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.01.2024 in the above petitions, while quashing and setting aside the orders impugned therein had inter alia noted that the authorities concerned could not be permitted to refuse NA permission on aspects which had taken place more than 30 years back, more particularly when the land was not even held by the petitioners. Learned Co-ordinate Bench had also further observed that the transfers i.e the transfers by which the petitioners had acquired the land in question having been reflected in the revenue record having not been questioned, it would be too late in a day for the authorities concerned to question the aspect which had taken place more than 30 years back. Learned Co-ordinate Bench had also further observed that the transfers i.e the transfers by which the petitioners had acquired the land in question having been reflected in the revenue record having not been questioned, it would be too late in a day for the authorities concerned to question the aspect which had taken place more than 30 years back. It would also appear that the aspect in question was relatable to the Agricultural Land Ceiling (ALC) Act and whereas ultimately, learned Co-ordinate Bench vide the order referred to hereinabove had set aside the orders passed by the Collector, Vadodara and had remanded the matter back to the Collector, Vadodara and whereas, the Collector was directed to decide the application of the petitioners for NA afresh. 4.1. It would appear in this regard that in the remand case, the Collector, Vadodara had passed orders dated 28.10.2024 rejecting the applications inter alia on the very selfsame ground that there may be a possible breach of provision of Agricultural Land Ceiling Act. 4.2. It would appear in this regard that this Court having regard to the fact that the order passed by the Collector, Vadodara was in teeth of the order passed by learned Co- ordinate Bench dated 31.01.2024 referred to hereinabove, had directed the Collector, Vadodara to remain personally present and to explain by way of an affidavit as to why appropriate action shall not be taken against him more particularly when the application for grant of NA had been rejected upon the very selfsame objection which were not countenanced by learned Co-ordinate Bench. It would appear that in compliance of order dated 20.12.2024, the then Collector, Vadodara had remained present before this Court and had filed an affidavit and whereas ultimately, after hearing all the sides, this Court had passed order dated 24.12.2024. This Court vide the said decision, had inter alia observed that the Collector, Vadodara while passing order dated 28.10.2024 and 29.10.2024 (in the three petitions which were being considered by this Court), could not have delved into the aspect of breach of provisions of ALC Act more particularly since the said aspect had not been countenanced by the learned Co-ordinate Bench in the earlier round of decision. This Court had also noted that the Collector had not taken into consideration the observations of the learned Co-ordinate Bench that the Collector, while considering application for grant of NA, shall take into consideration the observation of this Court in case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Gelani vs. State of Gujarat more particularly this Court had also in nutshell explained the scope and ambit of the decision of this Court. It would appear that this Court had also noted that while the Collector in the affidavit had tried to explain that his actions were only to ensure that there should not be any loss to the State Exchequer, yet, according to this Court, the actions of the Collector had led to further loss of Exchequer to the State Government more particularly on account of the writ petitions being required to be filed before this Court which were defended by the State. 4.3. Be that as it may, this Court had set aside orders dated 28.10.2024 and 29.10.2024 and had directed the petitioners to file a fresh application and whereas the Collector, Vadodara had been directed to decide the application “strictly in accordance with law and in accordance with the law as explained by this Court in case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Gelani.” This Court had also directed that “the Collector shall also not be influenced in any manner whatsoever by the considerations which weighed with him while passing orders dated 20.03.2023, 03.04.2023, 13.03.2023 as well as the present impugned orders dated 28.10.2024 and 29.10.2024.” At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that the orders of the year 2023 were the once which had been set aside by learned Co-ordinate Bench vide decision dated 31.01.2024 whereas, the later decisions which had been set aside by this Court in later decision dated 24.12.2024. 5. It would appear that the petitioners thereafter having filed application for grant of NA, the orders impugned in this group of petitions and whereas vide orders dated 12.03.2025, the Collector has rejected the application for grant of NA. At the first instance, it requires to be observed that the order concerned reflects the absolute casual and lackadaisical attitude in which the Collector had considered the application inspite of the fact that the issue had twice come up till this Court. At the first instance, it requires to be observed that the order concerned reflects the absolute casual and lackadaisical attitude in which the Collector had considered the application inspite of the fact that the issue had twice come up till this Court. The order also reflects the complete apathy held by the officer concerned as regards directions of this Court more particularly when one considers that the only reason which has found mentioned in the order is “on account of negative opinion expressed by the DCLR.” The order does not reflect any other reason whatsoever as to why the Collector has deemed it appropriate to reject the application. It is by now a well settled proposition of law that every order passed by an authority which is or has a quasi judicial implication or even otherwise tends to affect the right of a citizen has to contain reasons to justifying the final decision taken. To state the least, it is very sorry state of affairs that inspite of two successive orders of this Court wherein in one round where the Collector himself had been directed to remain present, yet, the direction of this Court to decide an application has been taken up so casually by the Collector concerned. 6. Now coming to the substantive aspect of the order, insofar as the substantive aspects is concerned, learned AGP Mr.Shah has tendered copy of the opinion of the DCLR i.e the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) dated 03.03.2025, which had weighed with the Collector in the impugned order and whereas, a perusal thereof reveals that after having discussed the earlier round of petitions, the Deputy Collector inter alia notes that vide order dated 24.12.2024, this Court had set aside the order passed by the Collector and had directed the petitioners to file applications afresh which was directed to be decided by the Collector. The Deputy Collector notes that the Collector has made a recommendation to the State Government on 01.02.2025 as regards decision of this Court and whereas, no reply has been received from the State Government and therefore, a negative opinion is given by the Deputy Collector. 6.1. The Deputy Collector notes that the Collector has made a recommendation to the State Government on 01.02.2025 as regards decision of this Court and whereas, no reply has been received from the State Government and therefore, a negative opinion is given by the Deputy Collector. 6.1. At this stage i.e. while this Court was dictating the order, since a request had been made by the learned Government Pleader, the matter had been adjourned to 03.04.2025 i.e. today and whereas, today initially the learned Government Pleader had tendered copy of a communication issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat to the Collector, Vadodara dated 02.04.2025 and whereas in the post recess session, learned Government Pleader has tendered affidavits of the former Collector and the incumbent Collector, District: Vadodara. 6.2. The former Collector i.e. the author of the orders which had been set aside by this Court vide order dated 24.12.2024, has inter alia while tendering unconditional apology, submitted that there is no malafides on the part of the officer concerned and the only intention was to avail necessary remedies in the interest of the State Exchequer. 6.3. The incumbent Collector has also while tendering apology has submitted that there is no malafide actions on the part of the officer concerned and whereas, the only intent of the officers were to ensure that rigors of the Ceiling Act apropos the land in question having come to light, necessary remedies could be availed off in the interest of State Exchequer. 7. Having perused the affidavits and having perused the communication dated 02.04.2025 by the Additional Chief Secretary, reference to which will be taken later on, at this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the opinion/request of the former Collector which has been relied upon by DCLR which giving a negative opinion and which request of DCLR has been relied upon by the incumbent Collector while passing the order impugned dated 12.03.2025. The said communication addressed to the Revenue Department, gives a history of the case including of the original order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Coordinate Bench and whereas, thereafter there is a reference to the order of this Court in the second round of writ petitions. The said communication addressed to the Revenue Department, gives a history of the case including of the original order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Coordinate Bench and whereas, thereafter there is a reference to the order of this Court in the second round of writ petitions. Thereafter, the reference is to the issues under the ALC Act and whereas, ultimately, the request being made was that permission may be accorded to challenge order passed by this Court dated 24.12.2024. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that the said permission having not yet been received even as on date i.e. approximately after more than three months of the order, the same still stands unchallenged. 7.1. Now, coming back to the communication dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary. In the said communication, the Additional Chief Secretary inter alia draws the attention of the Collector, Vadodara to the orders passed by this Court dated 31.01.2024 i.e. in the first round and dated 24.12.2024 i.e. in the second round. The Additional Chief Secretary thereafter has observed that in the order rejecting the NA permission dated 28.10.2024, the Collector had directed the ALT to verify whether there were any violations of the ALC Act. The Additional Chief Secretary further notes that upon inquiry, it is informed that as on date no proceedings have been initiated under the ALC Act which lies at the root of the rejection of the NA applications. It is observed that upon perusal of the record on 01.04.2025, the Resident Additional Collector, Vadodara had directed the DCLR to take steps under the ALC Act within a period of fifteen days. It is also mentioned that the issue is of grave concerned and deserves to be investigated since the issue concerns large tracts of the land and delay on the part of the officers concerned may often have wide spread ramification on the Government lands including huge loss to the State Exchequer and whereas, the Collector has been directed to inquire into the matter on priority basis within a period of fifteen days and submit a report along with the proposed steps including action against any officer(s) responsible in the matter. 7.2. 7.2. While the learned Government Pleader has attempted to submit that the communication inter alia is with regard to initiating steps as regards the ALC Act, to this Court, it would appear more particularly upon perusal of paragraph no.5 that the Additional Chief Secretary has directed the Collector to carry out a comprehensive fact finding inquiry as regards the issues raised in the communication and submit a report including proposing actions against officer/s responsible for the issue. Thus, it would appear that the Additional Chief Secretary was concerned more with regard to fixing institutional responsibility rather than going into the nicety of the ALC Act. 7.3. Be that as it may, this Court is not concerned as regards the steps being taken by the department against its erring officers, if any. This Court is more concerned about the fact that the officers have tried by hook or by crook to ensure that the directions of this Court are not complied with. To elaborate, it would appear that in the first round of litigation, the learned Coordinate Bench had made it absolutely clear that while considering an application for grant of NA permission, the authorities could not travel back in respect of history to the extent of 30 years and look into aspects for which substantive orders have not been passed. Later on, in the second round of litigation, since the application for grant of NA permission had been rejected by the Collector on the very selfsame ground i.e. insofar as aspect with regard to the ALC Act, this Court had inter alia observed that the issue stood concluded by the order of the learned Coordinate Bench more particularly since the learned Coordinate Bench had observed that the aspects which have not been touched upon substantively could not be reopened in the NA proceedings. 7.4. Furthermore, this Court has at paragraph no.3.3 inter alia observed as thus:- “3.3. It appears that in spite of the loud and clear message, an entry of the year 1985 is attempted to be relied upon for justifying the decision dated 28.10.2024 and 29.10.2024 more particularly as regards there being a possibility of violation of the provisions of the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act. To this Court, it would appear that the aspect which weighed with the Collector was completely erroneous. To this Court, it would appear that the aspect which weighed with the Collector was completely erroneous. Entry in question, mutated on 06.02.1985, was always there in the revenue record and whereas nothing prevented the authorities from taking appropriate action at the relevant point of time. For a probable transgression which had happened in the year 1985, to say after almost 4 decades that the Collector while considering an application for grant of non-agricultural permission, was empowered to look into such possible transgressions, to say the least is way beyond the scope and ambit of Section 65 of the Land Revenue Code.” The said paragraph clearly observed that once an entry had been mutated as far as in the year 1985, nothing had prevented the authorities concerned to take appropriate action with regard to the same at the relevant point of time and whereas, for a possible transgression which had happened in the said year, the Collector would not be empowered to try and find a solution with regard to the same after four decades more particularly at the stage of an application for grant of NA permission. 7.5 This Court at para-4(iii) had inter alia observed as thus:- “4(iii) The Collector shall also not be influenced in any manner whatsoever by the considerations which weighed with him while passing orders dated 20.03.2023, 03.04.2023, 13.03.2023 as well as the present impugned orders dated 28.10.2024 and 29.10.2024.” The aspects which weighed with the Collector in the above mentioned orders being the very selfsame aspect with regard to possible transgressions under the ALC Act. 8. To this Court, it would appear very clearly that the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 24.12.2024 have been tried to be overreached both by the incumbent Collector as well as by the predecessor Collector. The incumbent Collector having passed the impugned order, the only aspect which has weighed with the incumbent Collector while rejecting the NA application being the negative opinion of the DCLR and the negative opinion being on the aspect of the ALC Act, it would appear that vide the order dated 24.12.2024 more particularly by way the direction no.4(iii), the Collector had been specifically directed not to take into consideration the said aspect while deciding the application which would be preferred by the petitioner for grant of NA permission. 8.1. 8.1. The Collector having not appreciated the direction of this Court and having merely gone by the recommendation of the DCLR, it would be clear that the Collector has breached the direction given by this Court as hereinabove. The Collector having been specifically precluded from considering the said aspect, ought not to have rejected the application on the ground of breach of ALC Act, to this Court, is prima facie guilty of committing contempt of the direction of this Court. 8.2. As regards the predecessor Collector, it would appear that though the Collector was well aware as regards the directions given by the learned Coordinate Bench dated 31.01.2024 where the learned Coordinate Bench had inter alia observed that the Collector was not empowered to reject the application for grant of NA permission on aspects which have taken place more than 30 years back, had in orders impugned in the second round of the litigation, rejected the applications on the very selfsame consideration. 8.3. Be that as it may, the issue is that in the second order i.e. order of this Court dated 24.12.2024, was nothing but a mere reiteration of the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench dated 31.01.2024. It needs to be observed that in spite of knowing clearly as regards the existence of order dated 31.01.2024 the Collector has sought to, vide communication dated 01.02.2025, requested the Revenue Department to challenge order dated 24.12.2024. 8.4. To this Court, it would appear that request for challenging order dated 24.12.2024 would be of no consequence since as noted hereinabove, it was the original order of the learned Coordinate Bench which had laid down the terms in which the decision had to be taken by the Collector concerned. Merely by requesting to challenge the later order without challenging the former order was nothing but an eyewash and to this Court, it would appear that the entire purpose was to create a justification for not complying with the directions of this Court dated 24.12.2024 whereby the Collector was required to consider the application of the petitioner without being influenced by the considerations which had weighed with him while passing of the earlier orders. Thus, it would clearly appear that the predecessor Collector had attempted to overreach the due process of law and has, prima facie to this Court, committed contempt of direction of this Court dated 24.12.2024 as well as order dated 31.01.2024. 9. Hence, Notice is issued to both the respective Collectors i.e. incumbent Collector, Vadodara as well as the predecessor Collector, Vadodara making it returnable on 21.04.2025 calling upon the officers to explain as to why this Court should not initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the officers. 9.1. The petitioner is directed to join the said officers as party – respondents in the present petitions in their personal capacity. 9.2. State may consider filing an affidavit-in-reply to the allegations made in the present petitions. 9.3. Petitions shall be taken up on merits on the next date of hearing. Direct service is permitted.