Gujarat High Court
Harijan vs State on 28 February, 2011
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/937/2011 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 937 of 2011
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2472 of 2011
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2480 of 2011
=========================================================
HARIJAN
MEGHJIBHAI HIRABHAI & 9 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR MANOJ
SHRIMALI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 10.
Special
Civil Application No.2472 to 2474 of 2011
Mr.
Dave, AGP for Respondent No.1
Special
Civil Application No.2475 to 2480 of 2011
Ms.
Jhaveri, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 28/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions and they arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat dated 3.9.2010 passed in Revision Application Nos.12 of 2008 to 15 of 2008 and 17 of 2008 to 22 of 2008, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. All these petitioners were granted land admeasuring 2 acres and 20 gunthas of land out of the government land bearing survey no.71 situated at village Lachhadi, Tal: Maliya Hatina on a lease for a period of 15 years by order dated 6.6.1988 for specific purpose of growing fruit trees. As it was found that purpose for which the land was leased to the respective petitioners i.e. growing fruit trees is not complied with and there is a breach of condition, the show cause notices were issued upon the petitioners and they were called upon to show cause why the land in question shall not be forfeited to the State Government. The show cause notices were opposed by the respective petitioners by submitting that they come from very poor family and they maintain themselves from agriculture income and after getting the land they have incurred the expenses and leveled it and at the relevant time they have grown the trees but due to scarcity of water, the same were destroyed and thereafter they have constructed the Well and thereafter they have grown fruit trees and have also started cultivating the land. It is found that against the requirement of 400 trees, the respective petitioners have grown only 15 to 30 fruit trees and that too recently and that it was found that as such the land in question was used for cultivation rather than growing the fruit trees, there was a breach of condition of lease and considering the fact that even otherwise the lease period has already expired in the year 2003 and before that there was no application for renewal of the lease, the Collector, Junagadh passed the orders dated 11.2.2008 forfeiting the land in question to the State Government. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Collector dated 11.2.2008 passed against the respective petitioners, the respective petitioners preferred Revision Application Nos.12 of 2008 to 15 of 2008 and 17 of 2008 to 22 of 2008 before the State Government i.e. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat and same are dismissed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat by impugned judgment and order dated 6.9.2010 confirming the order passed by the Collector, Junagadh dated 11.2.2008. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Revisional Authority, respective petitioners have preferred present Special Civil Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Shri Shrimali, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by both the authorities below in forfeiting the land in question to the State Government are absolutely illegal and most arbitrary. It is submitted that even before the Collector it was specifically mentioned that more than 140 fruit trees have been grown, however the same have not been properly appreciated by both the authorities below. It is submitted that even the authorities below have materially erred in not appreciating the difficulties faced by the petitioners in growing the fruit trees. It is, therefore, requested to allow the present petition and direct the respondent to extend the period of lease by submitting that the respective petitioners have incurred expenditure in leveling the land. No other submissions have been made.
4. All these petitions are opposed by Shri Pranav Dave, learned AGP and Ms. Jhaveri, learned AGP by submitting that there are concurrent findings given by both the authorities below with respect to breach of condition of the lease. It is submitted that it is found from the panchnama produced by the very petitioners that at the most 15 to 30 fruits trees are grown and that too recently within four to five years only and as such the land in question was used for cultivating the land rather than growing the fruit trees for which the land in question was leased to them. It is submitted that even despite the fact that lease period expired in the year 2003, no application were given prior thereto for renewal of the lease. Therefore, it is submitted that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Collector has rightly passed the order to forfeit the land in question, which is rightly confirmed by the Revisional Authority. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss all the Special Civil Applications.
5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that Shri Shrimali, learned advocate for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that in fact more than 250 fruit trees were grown and it was his case that the same is reflected from the panchnama. However, when he was called upon to make good the same, he has failed to satisfy the Court that more than 250 fruit trees are grown. On the contrary, attention of the learned advocate for the petitioners was drawn to the panchnama which are produced by the petitioners, from which it appears that in each of the case approximately 15 to 30 fruit trees are grown and that too recently i.e. within 3 to 4 years. Thus, learned advocate for the petitioners could not substantiate their claim that more than 150 to 250 fruit trees were grown. On the contrary, it is has been found that instead of growing fruit trees, respective petitioners started cultivating the land and getting crops. It is not in dispute that the land in question was not granted to the petitioners for cultivation but was given to the petitioner on lease for growing fruit trees and as per the norms and condition per acre minimum 400 fruit trees are to be grown. It has been found that even after a period 20 years only 15 to 30 fruits trees are grown and rest of the lands have been used for the cultivation, which is not permissible. Thus, admittedly there is a breach of condition of lease for which show cause notices were issued and after giving an opportunity to the petitioners, the land in question is forfeited to the State Government by the Collector holding that there is breach of condition of the lease. The said orders passed by the Collector are confirmed by the Revisional Authority. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when it is found that purpose for which the land in question was leased to the petitioner and is not achieved and there is breach of condition of the lease and when after following due procedure land in question is forfeited to the State Government, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the authority below. It is to be noted that even the lease period has also expired in the year 2003. Considering the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of the case, no interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, when purpose for which the land in question was leased to the petitioner, the same is not achieved.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these petitions fail and they deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
(M.R.SHAH, J.) kaushik Top