HARIJAN SOMA PITHA VADIAYATAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The factual matrix in the present case is that the petitioners are in possession of the land bearing survey No.125/1/p3 admeasuring 4.04 Acres at Village Piplana, Taluka Manavadar, District Junagadh. The said parcel of land was granted by the Collector, Junagadh to the petitioners on lease basis for a period of 30 years. The said land came to be granted by order dtd. 18/11/1973 along with the conditions stipulated therein. That the Mamlatdar submitted a report to the Collector, Junagadh in respect of breach of some conditions of the allotment letter and the Collector, without any notice and without giving any hearing to the petitioners, passed order dtd. 4/9/2006, ordering resumption/forfeiture of the land in question on the ground that the application for renewal of lease was not made. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred Revision Application No.55 of 2006 which came to be partly allowed by order dtd. 9/11/2011 and the case came to be remanded back to the Collector for reconsideration afresh after giving due hearing to the petitioners. By order dtd. 25/3/2013, the Collector rejected the petitioners' application for renewal of lease and ordered resumption of land to the State Government on the ground that the number of trees were less than what was stipulated in Government Resolution dtd. 10/6/2003 as per the report of the Mamlatdar. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No.24 of 2013 which came to be rejected by respondent No.1 on 30/6/2017. The petitioners once again made an application for reconsideration of their application and also for permanent grant of land. The Collector, by order dtd. 10/8/2020, rejected the application of the petitioners as being not maintainable in absence of any provision for reconsideration and sale of land. Aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present Special Civil Application.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Amar Mithani for the petitioners submits that the order of the Collector dtd. 25/3/2013 as well as order dtd. 30/6/2017 passed by respondent No.1 cannot be sustained as the same are in contravention of the orders passed by this Court. He submits that this Court by order dtd. 5/9/2014 in Special Civil Application No.14445 of 2008 and order dtd. 9/2/2023 in Special Civil Application No.11655 of 2022 held that merely because 1000 trees per hectare have not been grown as per Government Resolution dtd. 10/6/2003, it cannot be a ground to confiscate the land and that at the most, it could be considered as a lapse and could have been directed to comply with the same in future. Learned advocate submits that in the present case also, the authority has given the reason that less number of trees have been grown, which is in violation of Government Resolution dtd. 10/6/2003. In view thereof, he submits that the order dtd. 30/6/2017 passed by respondent No.1 as well as order of the Collector dtd. 25/3/2013 in Case No.19 of 2011 be set aside and the Special Civil Application be allowed.