Gujarat High Court
Dy vs State on 7 December, 1991
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
SCA/224819/1992 19/ 19 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2248 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR AJ PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR DEVANG VYAS, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 24/08/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT
Petitioner has challenged an order dated 7th December 1991 by which the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat was pleased to set aside the orders dated 5.12.81, 27.1.82 and 11.5.87 passed by the Collector, Valsad. He was further pleased to order the Collector to take the possession of the land back.
2. Facts leading to the present petition are as follows:-
2.1 The petitioner is an ex-service man. He had joined the Army as Commissioned Officer on 25.6.65 and was released from Army Service on 1st February 1973. On the same day, he joined Police Service. While the petitioner was posted as District Superintendent of Police, Valsad, he applied for grant of Panchayat land bearing survey No.550 and 552 of village Magod, Taluka Valsad for personal cultivation on lease for growing coconut trees thereon. The lands were gaucher lands allotted to the Panchayat. It appears that on 29th November 1980, Magod Gram Panchayat passed a unanimous resolution to the effect that the Panchayat has no objection if the land is allotted to the petitioner. Resolution reads as follows:-
Resolution No.5.
Application of Shri B.J.Gadhvi Saheb regarding allotment of land bearing Survey Nos.550 and 552.
At the meeting held today, it was decided that since Shri B.J.Gadhvi, present D.S.P. Saheb, Bulsar has demanded land bearing Survey Nos.550 and 552 of village Magod, Taluka Bulsar, for carrying on agriculture, our Gram Panchayat is willing to give the said land without compensation if the same is granted by the Government in accordance with the Government Rules and Regulations; and our Panchayat has no objection or difficulty if this land is given to Shri B.J.Gadhvi.
Resolution proposed by the President.
Resolution is passed unanimously.
On 5.12.81, the Collector, Valsad passed an order reclaiming gaucher land of survey No.550 admeasuirng 3 hectares 53 Are and 09 square meters (equivalent to 8 acres and 29 gunthas)and further granting the said land to the petitioner on lease for plantation of coconut trees for a period of five years on payment of rent of Rs.1 per year.
Condition No.5 of the order provided that upon completion of the term of lease, the land shall be returned to the Government. Condition No.6 provided that the petitioner shall not be allowed to carry out any construction on the land in question. The said allotment of the land was made primarily on the ground that the petitioner was an ex-army officer and further that the Panchayat had no objection to return the land to the Government for the said purpose.
2.2 It appears that on 7.12.1981 i.e. only two days after land of Survey No.550 was given on lease to the petitioner, he filed another application before the Collector and requested that to make his agricultural operations economically viable, he may be allotted further land of Survey No.552 as originally requested by him and that the lease period be extended to 20 years.
2.3 On 27.1.82, the Collector, Valsad passed further order in favour of the petitioner. In this order, he granted additional land of survey No.552 admeasuring 8 acres and 4 gnthas. He simultaneously extended the term of lease of both the lands for a period of 20 years.
2.4 Thus, by the above mentioned two orders, the Collector granted 16 acres and 33 gunthas of land to the petitioner for cultivation of coconut plantation on lease for a period of 20 years on payment of rent of Rs.1 per year.
2.5 It appears that a small portion of the land leased to the petitioner was required for houses of weaker sections of the society and the Collector, therefore on 10.6.82 alloted 14 gunthas of survey No.550 to 18 members of weaker sections of the society for their housing.
2.6 It seems that one Ramanbhai Sukarbhai Patel also claiming to be an ex-army man was interested in allotment of the very same land. He, therefore, approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.3468 of 1982 seeking allotment of land in his favour. Learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 23.6.83, however, dismissed the petition primarily on the ground that the said petitioner was not covered within the definition of Ex-service Man . Learned Judge, however, found the attitude of the authorities intriguing in allotting the land to the present petitioner without any compensation at all. In the said order, it was observed as follows:-
Before I decide the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief, I must mention that the attitude taken by the village Panchayat of that village is to say the least is very strange and highly improper for a public body. When the question arose as to whether the land could be alloted to the petitioner, the Sarpanch of that Panchayat objected that the land should not be given to him because the land was gaucher land. When the question arose as to whether the same land could be allotted to respondent No.3, the Panchayat unanimously passed a resolution that there is no objection if the land is given to respondent No.3 and in that resolution they mention that there is no objection whatsoever if the land is allotted to respondent No.3 without taking any compensation from him. This is regarding the attitude of respondent No.2. However, these facts do not entitle the petitioner to get the land. The reason is that he is not an ex serviceman.
2.7 It appears that the petitioner once again approached the Collector stating that he has already planted large number of coconut trees and has incurred expenditure in doing so and that, therefore, the land be alloted to him on ownership basis and not lease. The Collector, Valsad, once again obliged the petitioner by passing an order dated 11.5.87 granting the entire land of survey Nos.550 and 552 (barrning 14 gunthas alloted for housing of certain persons) to the petitioner on payment of Rs.825/-.
2.8 On 16.10.1990, Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why all the three orders passed by the Collector be not recalled. In the notice itself, it was stated that before deleting the land from the head of gaucher lands, proper opportunity to the people of village was not given whether sufficient land for grazing was available to the people of the village. It was further stated that the Government had declared a policy for cultivation of coconut trees on 20th March 1965, but the provisions made therein have not been followed.
As per the policy, it was required to call for applications and dispose of the same as per the priority which has not been done. No advertisement has been issued and no applications received. Though the petitioner was not covered under any of the priorities specified under the said policy, his application has been accepted and total 16 acres and 33 gunthas of gaucher land has been reclaimed and granted for cultivation of coconut trees for a period of 20 years which order was ab initio void. Further order of 11.5.87 granting land under new tenure is also contrary to the Government policy.
2.9 The petitioner opposed the notice. He was given sufficient opportunity to represent his case. He filed his written reply. He appeared through his counsel who was also permitted to make oral submissions. Secretary, eventually, passed the impugned order dated 7.12.91 cancelling the grant of land made by the Collector, Valsad through the above-mentioned three orders. In the impugned order itself, it is observed that economically poor people of the village rely on grazing the lands for sustenance of their livestock. Before dealing with gaucher land, people of the village should have been given an opportunity to represent. The Collector has not verified the total number of livestock and the extent of gaucher land available in the village. It is understandable that individual members of the village could not have resisted the application of the DSP of the District for grant of land. It was further held that for grant of land for cultivating coconut trees, it was necessary to call for applications from all interested persons which was not done. There is no Government policy for granting land on permanent basis for cultivating coconut trees. In any case, only people of the village could have been granted land in any form for growing coconut trees. The petitioner, admittedly, did not hold any agricultural lands at Magod village. The Government policy did not permit grant of land to outsiders. It was further observed that there is no policy of giving priority to ex-service man for granting land for cultivation of coconut trees. The land was not being disposed of for public purpose. The Collector did not have the authority to grant such land to the petitioner. Even considering that the petitioner is an ex-service man, his income did not qualify him for benefit of Government policy of granting land to such persons. On all these grounds, it was observed that the impugned orders were nullity and they were accordingly quashed and set aside.
2.10 It is this order which the petitioner has challenged in the present petition on various grounds.
3. Affidavits and counter affidavits have been filed. The petitioner has contended that he has incurred huge amount of expenditure in developing the land. He has spent money for leveling the land, in digging tube wells, in making his own house and other farm houses and in planting fruit bearing trees, principally coconut trees.
4. The State on the other hand, has stated in the reply affidavit that the petitioner was District Superintendent of Police, Valsad at the relevant time. He originally belongs to Muli Taluka of Surendranagar District. The Collector had not followed the Government guidelines while granting land to the petitioner. Only Government waste land could be granted for plantation of coconut trees and not gaucher land. For grant of land to ex-service man, it was necessary that he would be dependent on such income from cultivation and his personal income does not exceed Rs.500/- per month. The income of the petitioner was much higher than the said amount at the relevant time.
5. Appearing for the petitioner, learned advocate Shri A.J.Patel raised the following contentions:
There was gross delay in initiation of the proceedings. Show cause notice was issued on 16.10.90 whereas the orders were passed by the Collector in 1981, 1982 and 1987 respectively.
Earlier, the Collector had approached the Government before granting the land on lease. The Government, however, vide its communication dated 18.11.81 had advised the Collector that the issue is within the jurisdiction of the Collector. Government now cannot question the orders passed by the Collector.
That the petitioner has made huge investments to improve the land in question. It would, therefore, be inequitable to recall the orders.
It was contended that the impugned order travels beyond the scope of the show cause notice and also in addition to quashing the orders passed by the Collector seeks recovery of the possession of the land.
Government circulars permit ex-army man to seek Government land for personal cultivation.
It was further contended that large number of similarly situated ex-army men have been granted such lands. It is only in case of the petitioner that the Government has sought to recall such grant.
It was further contended that pursuant to the orders passed by the Collector, sanad has already been granted in favour of the petitioner and the only course upon to the Government thereafter was to seek cancellation of the sale through civil litigation.
It was contended that a petition was filed by one Ramanbhai Sukurbhai Patel in which, learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 23.6.83 upheld the orders passed by the Collector in favour of the present petitioner.
5.1 In support of the contention that the Government could not have initiated proceedings after inordinate delay, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions.
Bodhi Chami Ex-Servicemen Co-operative Tenants Farming Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 1986 Indlaw SC 518 Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ld. State of Gujarat, 2004 Indlaw SC 1418 Patel Raghav Natha v. G.F. Mankodi, 1965 GLR 34 which was upheld by the Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Raghav Natha, 10 GLR 992 Bipinchandra G. Dalal v. State, 1987( 2) GLR 971.
5.2 Reliance was also made to the decisions in the case of Rajpal Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1985 (Supp) SCC 72 and in the case of Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC 1497 to point out that special protection is granted to ex-service man. In these cases, however, no ratio has been laid down which can be applied in the present case and the observations and directions are issued on facts arising therein.
5.3 Reliance was also placed in the case of Bhagwanji Bawanji v. State, 12 GLR 156 wherein it was observed that once the State Government had exercised revisional powers under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and not found any reason to interfere, thereafter Government cannot at the instance of the third party exercise once again the powers under section 211. Such is not the situation in the present case. The said decision, therefore is of no use of the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned AGP Shri Devang Vyas opposed the petition and supported the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals). He submitted that the Collector had committed gross illegality in granting land to the petitioner. After issuing show cause notice, therefore, the authority recalled such an order. The petition is therefore devoid of merits.
7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, few facts emerging from the record may be recalled.
7.1 The petitioner after retiring from army service had straightway joined Gujarat Police in the year 1973. Land bearing survey Nos.550 and 552 were gaucher lands alloted to the Panchayat. The Panchayat passed a resolution stating that if such lands are granted to the petitioner, the Panchayat has no objection. In the resolution itself, the petitioner was referred as 'Gadhvi Saheb, the DSP'.
7.2 The Collector acted upon the application of the petitioner for grant of land and the resolution passed by the Panchayat without any further investigation. He did not take into account the Government policy and circulars for grant of land for cultivation of coconut trees. He did not address the question whether the petitioner was eligible for such grant. He did not examine whether the Government policy permitted gaucher land to be granted for such purpose. First order was passed by the Collector on 5.12.81 granting 8 acres and 29 gunthas of land bearing survey No.550 to the petitioner on lease for a period of 5 years on payment of rent of Rs.1 per year. On a further application by the petitioner shortly thereafter, the Collector passed further order on 27.1.82 granting further land of 8 acres and 4 gunthas of survey No.552 and allotting both the lands for a period of 20 years on a token rent of Rs.1 per year.
7.3 The petitioner was not satisfied with the largesee of public property distributed free of cost as if they were private transactions between the Collector and the DSP of the District. He asked for the land on permanent basis claiming that he had already taken much pain and spent large amounts on its development. The Collector, Valsad, who happened to be incumbent other than one who had passed the previous orders, once again showed his graciousness by granting Government land to the petitioner on permanent basis. 16 acres and 33 gunthas of land thus was granted to the petitioner on payment of Rs.825/- in all.
7.4 The Collector did not notice that as the District Superintendent of Police, the petitioner was receiving substantial salary from the Government. The Collector was also not perturbed by the fact that the petitioner was not an agriculturist of Valsad District. Perhaps, he was not an agriculturist at all. These details were of no consequence to the Collector. To him the paramount consideration was that the petitioner was an ex-service man. He did not even address the question as to how the petitioner would be able to cultivate the land personally being in active Police Service of transferable nature. At the relevant time, the Tenancy Laws of the State rigidly prohibited any person from owning agricultural land outside 8 k.m. radius of his other agricultural holding. It also required that the person seeking to cultivate the land personally would do so by having a permanent residence within 16 k.m. of the agricultural land held by him. In general, the Bombay and Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act frowned upon a non-agriculturist owning agricultural land or carrying on agricultural operations as an owner. Be that as it may, the Collector did not even stop for a moment and think as to how a village Panchayat would oppose the wish of the District Superintendent of Police to acquire Government land which was alloted to the village Panchayat for grazing purpose. Presently prevailing Government policy provides for the ratio of one acre of grazing land for every 40 heads of cattle in the village. Whatever the ratio prevailed at the relevant time, should the Collector not have posed the question to himself whether after deducting the lands of said two survey numbers was the Panchayat left with sufficient gaucher land to support its cattle population ? Admittedly this was not done by the Collector. He was in some kind of hurry to oblige the petitioner.
8. It was in this background that three orders successively came to be passed in favour of the petitioner which the Secretary (Appeals) found not sustainable which, as already noted above, have been canceled by the impugned after issuance of show cause notice.
9. I find absolutely no illegality in the order passed by Secretary. In fact, perpetuating the orders passed by the Collector itself would be unpardonable to say the least. None of the grounds raised by the petitioner would convince me to interfere with the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals). I will deal with these grounds individually shortly hereinafter.
10. At this stage, I only observe that the Collector seems to have passed the said three orders in favour of the petitioner without following any procedure, without following Government policies, without adhering to the requirements of various circulars and with a single minded devotion to ensure that the land which the petitioner could never have claimed be granted to him virtually free of cost. With passing of each order, the action of the Collector became more and more objectionable. With passing of each order, the Collector bend the rules and the procedures further in favour of the petitioner. It is unfortunate that in a country governed by rule of law and bound by the provisions of the Constitution, in which equality of all citizens is one of the basic features, only by weight of the position which the petitioner was enjoying, he could secure such orders in his favour. To the various conclusions reached by the Secretary, the petitioner has not been able to dislodge the same. In fact the petition is sought to be maintained mainly on technical grounds. And little has been argued about the merit of the order passed by the Secretary. As already noted, the Secretary found that there was no Government policy to grant land for coconut plantation from the gaucher land. Even while doing so, necessary publicity was required to be given calling for interested individuals to apply and thereafter comply with the priority prescribed in the circular. There was no priority granted to ex-service men in such grant. The Secretary also found that an ex-service man can claim land for cultivation provided his income is not more than Rs.500/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioner was drawing salary much higher than that. Though he disclosed salary of Rs.12,000/- per annum before the Collector, learned Assistant Government Pleader made available a communication from the Pay and Accounts Office, indicating that in February 1982, the petitioner was drawing Rs.2170 per month. The same is taken on record and referred since contents thereof are not seriously disputed. Even accounting for some deduction for a year or two, when the petitioner made his application, surely his salary was not Rs.1,000/- per month. In any case, it far exceeded Rs.500/- per month which was the ceiling. On all counts, thus the petitioner could not have been allotted Government land. Perhaps, to circumvent these irritants, the Collector initially granted part of the land to the petitioner on lease for a period of five years. Shortly thereafter, improved the position of the petitioner by granting another parcel of land of 8 acres and 4 gunthas making both the leases for 20 years and thereafter on an application made by the petitioner granted land permanently on payment of meagre sum of Rs.825/-. If the Government land could be divested in such perfunctory manner I shudder to think how the Government would be able to protect any of its properties. If DSP of the District and Collector of the District can join hands and divide Government properties as if they are dealing in private transactions, the Government control over its own properties would come to naught. Such an action of the Collector can never be protected under any circumstances, no matter what technical pleas the petitioner may raise particularly when to the conclusions of the Secretary, the petitioner has no satisfactory answer.
11. I have perused various circulars produced on record. Circular dated 20.3.1965 provides that Government waste land not fit for cultivation as well as reclaimed land or land which can be reclaimed may be granted for coconut and arecanut plantation. The petitioner, therefore, could not have been granted gaucher land for coconut plantation. Clause (5) of the circular reads as sunder:
(5)The land shall be given to such cultivators who have got interest and aptitude for such plantation and amongst them the priorities for grant will be as under:-
The adjoining owners;
The displaced persons and the Indian nationals repatriated from African colonies and other foreign countries Persons residing in and having land at the village If there are no demands from persons having first and second priorities and there are more other persons demanding the land, it shall be disposed of by public auction after fixing the upset price/upset rent.
The petitioner did not fall under any of the above categories. His aptitude for such plantation was never inquired into. Respondents have produced consolidated guidelines dated 24.4.1981 for grant of Government land at Annexure R-II with the reply. In that, it is provided that the ex-service man who seeks Government land shall have to give undertaking that after retirement he wishes to sustain himself by doing agriculture and if after the grant of land also, he is found to be earning more than Rs.500/- per month from other sources, land granted to him will be confiscated without any compensation. In the present case, even at the time of applying for land, the petitioner was earning well over Rs.500 per month.
12. I find that the application made by the petitioner particularly declaring his income of Rs.12,000/- per annum did not contain true disclosures. His income was far more than the said amount as already noted. In any case, such an application could never have been entertained by the Collector for grant of gaucher land for cultivation of coconut trees. For the reasons recorded herein-above, the orders of the Collector were, therefore, vitiated on account of fraud. Application of the petitioner did not contain correct statement of his income. Collector granted the application ignoring Government policy and Rules and Regulations. Grant of land was thus nothing short of fraud on public. It is by now well settled that fraud would vitiate any order and such order can be struck down at any time.
13. In the case of M/s.Tanna and Modi v. C.I.T.Mumbai XXV, AIR 2007 SC 2301 it was observed as follows:
19.
It is however, also well settled that fraud vitiates all solemn acts. Fraudulent actions shall render the act a nullity. It would be non est in the eyes of law.
13.1 In the case of A.V.Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. AIR 2007 SC 1546, it was observed that once it is established that the order was obtained by the successful party by practicing or playing fraud, it is vitiated. Such order cannot be legal, valid or in consonance with law. It is non-existent and non est and cannot be allowed to stand.
13.2 In the case of Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 3028, the Supreme Court finding that the order of the Forest Tribunal was obtained by fraud, refused to interfere with the order passed by the High Court though earlier the High Court had declined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal on the ground of delay.
13.3 In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Suryachandra Rao, AIR 2005 SC 3310, it was observed as follows :-
10.
"Fraud", as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. (See Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors., 2003 (8) SCC 319).
14. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merits in the petition. It may be that the show cause notice was issued in the year 1990. However, orders were passed by the Collector which provided a chain of events. In the year 1981, land bearing survey No.550 was granted to the petitioner on lease for a period of 5 years. In 1982, another land of survey No.552 was granted and the lease period was extended to 20 years. In the year 1987, both the lands were granted on ownership basis. These were thus successive orders and not separate orders having independent existence. The orders of 1981 and 1982 thus merged in the order passed by the Collector in 1987. Even if the orders of 1981 and 1982 were left untouched the lease period would have expired in 2002. Question of delay has to be viewed in the facts of each case. In the present case, when I find that the Collector had wholly unauthorizedly, illegally and perhaps with certain ulterior motive passed orders in favour of the petitioner granting Government land, which grant was based on fraud committed by the petitioner, the action cannot be closed only on the ground of alleged delay which in any case was not serious as to snuff out the Government action.
15. Reference to communication dated 18.11.81 of the Government can be of no avail to the petitioner. It only indicated that the Collector is competent to consider the application of the petitioner. It did not put any seal on the orders passed by the Collector so that the Government ultimately if found the Collector has committed any illegality, could still not review the order under section 211 of the Code.
16. The petitioner has with much vehemence contended that large scale improvement has been made by making the investments on the land. He has with the additional affidavit filed figures which, on the face of it, seem highly exaggerated. In an affidavit dated 25.7.2005 he has claimed to have spent Rs.2 lakhs for digging 4 tube-wells, Rs.8,12,000/- for construction of farm-house and servant quarters, Rs.3,85,000 for barbed wire fencing, Rs.7,00,000/- for banana plantation, Rs.1,50,000/- for diesel generating set, Rs.1,50,000/- for erecting water reservoir and Rs.50,000/- for purchasing agricultural implements. No supporting documents are provided on record. Before the authority, no such figures were presented. After the authority passed order canceling the grant of land, the petitioner obviously could not have made further improvements. If he did so, it must be at his peril. Before the authorities all that he has stated was that he spent Rs.80,000/- for cultivation and Rs.1 lakh in construction. Even if benefit of such investments is granted to the petitioner, surely, he had prepared an orchard with a view to making profit therefrom. He has enjoyed uninterrupted possession of the land from the year 1981. Even after considering the gestation period of nearly a decade, the petitioner would have started earning profit from the fruit bearing trees some time in the year 1992. Thus uptill now he has already reaped the benefits of cultivation of the Government land which from the very outset ought not to have been granted to him. For the investments that he made, he would surely have earned profit. He cannot now turn around and say that for all times to come, even if the initial grant of land was hopelessly illegal, the same should not be disturbed only on the ground that he has made some effort or investment in developing the land.
17. It is stated that the order travels beyond the show cause notice. I am afraid, the contention cannot be accepted. The show cause notice indicated that the Secretary wishes to recall all the three orders passed by the Collector. Having done that, reclaiming possession of the land is only a natural consequence.
18. Reliance placed on the Government circulars providing for policy for granting land to ex-service man also would not help the petitioner. The policy on record specifically provides that the land will be granted to ex-service man if it is necessary for his sustenance. The petitioner was the District Superintendent of Police of the District. He surely did not require the said land for his sustenance.
19. In support of ground of discrimination, no specific instances have been pointed out wherein under similar circumstances, land granted to other persons have not been cancelled by the Government. In any case, Article 14 does not talk of negative equality. This principle is too well settled requiring any authority to be cited.
20. It was stated that sanad once granted could not be cancelled and the ownership of land would vest in the petitioner. When I find that the orders granting the land themselves suffer from material illegalities vitiated on the ground of fraud, the order of the Secretary cancelling such an order cannot be interfered with.
21. Reference to the order dated 23rd June 1983 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.3468 of 1982 will also not salvage the situation for the petitioner. It was a case where a third party had interest on the same land as an ex-service man. He was found not to be an ex-service man and his petition was, therefore, dismissed. While doing so, the learned single Judge expressed his anguish over the manner of granting of granting the land to the petitioner. This has already been noted in the earlier part of the order.
22. On all counts, I find that the petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated.
23. At the request of the learned advocate for the petitioner, this order is kept in abeyance till 7th September, 2009.
(Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)