C/SCA/6682/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6682 of 2025 ========================================================== BHURABHAI KUNAVARBHAI RAJPUT Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MS DISHA N NANAVATY(2957) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 08/05/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mitul Shelat appearing with learned advocate Ms.Disha Nanavaty on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayneel Parikh appearing on behalf of the respondent – State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Resident Additional Collector, Banaskantha at Palanpur more particularly whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit difference of premium amounting to Rs.19,42,200/- i.e. the difference of premium which had been paid by the petitioner pursuant to C/SCA/6682/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 the original order issued by the Collector dated 11.04.2023 and a new computation which has been done by the respondent authorities as recommended by the Accountant General. 2.1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Shelat does not press prayer-B more particularly with liberty to file an independent petition for the said prayer, if so advised. 3. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Shelat and learned AGP Mr.Parikh, to this Court, it would appear that while the petitioner who was owner and occupier of the land in question had applied for permission for conversion of the land from restricted tenure to unrestricted tenure and for grant of NA permission and whereas, upon the permission being granted, the petitioner had paid an amount of premium amounting to Rs.34,84,400/-. It would appear that the petitioner having paid the said amount in the year 2023 i.e. within the stipulated time, the permission as required had been granted. It would appear that thereafter, all of a sudden, the impugned order referred to hereinabove has been issued to the present petitioner asking the present petitioner to deposit the said amount. Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/6682/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 3.1. Be that as it may, to this Court it would appear that the impugned order requires interference at this stage on two counts namely (i) that the petitioners were not afforded an appropriate opportunity of hearing before an order prejudicial to the petitioner had been passed and (ii) the order does not reflect appropriate application of mind on the part of the Resident Additional Collector, who has just relied upon the recommendation/opinion from the office of the Accountant General, without independently verifying as to whether the opinion given by the office of the Accountant General was correct or not. To this Court, it would appear that even though the Accountant General may have given an opinion, it would be required for the competent authority to afford an appropriate opportunity to the petitioner and take an appropriate decision, more particularly in accordance with law and in accordance with extant police of the State Government. 4. Having regard to the above observations, to this Court it would appear that setting aside of the impugned order and reserving liberty in favour of the State to re-initiate the proceedings, would balance the equities. Having regard to C/SCA/6682/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 such a position, the following directions are issued:- (i) The order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Resident Additional Collector, Banaskantha at Palanpur, is hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the State Authorities to re-initiate proceedings against the present petitioners insofar as the aspect as mentioned in the order dated 12.03.2025 is concerned, albeit the authorities if they chose to initiate the proceeding shall afford appropriate opportunity to the present petitioner. (iii) All rights and contentions of all parties are kept open. 5. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of as allowed. (NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Bhoomi Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: BHOOMI YOGESHBHAI MISTRY(HC01557), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/05/2025 18:15:50