SCA/463/1998 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 463 of 1998 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 ? ============================================= VAJUBHA SAJUBHA ZALA PROPRIETOR OF JYOTI CERAMICS - Petitioner(s) Versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR RAJKOT & 1 - Respondent(s) ============================================= Appearance : MR SANDEEP N BHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS MANISHA SHAH ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ============================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 21/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.10.1997 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat, by virtue of which the revision application of the petitioner came to be dismissed. SCA/463/1998 2/4 JUDGMENT Shortly stated the facts of the case of the petitioner are as follows: The petitioner is admittedly in unauthorised occupation of the Government land admeasuring 2774.43 sq.mtrs out of Survey No.77 paiki of Wankaner. The petitioner who runs a factory in the name of `Jyoti Ceramics' had occupied the said land as the same was adjoining to the land of the factory premises of the petitioner which he had purchased in the year 1980. The authority initiated the proceedings for eviction, upon which, the petitioner requested for regularisation of his possession. The Additional Chief Secretary by his order dated 30.05.1988 while allowing the revision application of the petitioner directed the Collector to regularise his occupation after charging the penalty for unauthorised occupation. By order dated 19.11.1996, the Collector, Rajkot fixed the market price of the land at Rs.45/- per sq. mtrs and charging two and half times possession price, demanded a sum of Rs.2,42,937.70 from the petitioner for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation. The petitioner, however, disputed the quantification of the price and suggested that the market rate should be fixed with relevance to the year 1984-85 when the revision was accepted by the Revenue Secretary. He made representation in this regard on 27.11.1996. On 16.12.1996 the Collector, Rajkot turned down his request and directed him to pay price within twenty days. The petitioner did not deposit the amount but continued to make representations. On 19.03.1997 the Collector once again reminded the petitioner to deposit the amount, failing which the steps should be taken for eviction. The petitioner had at one stage approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.4435 of 1997 and withdrew the same for availing the other remedy. He, thereupon, approached the government by filing revision application which came to be turned down SCA/463/1998 3/4 JUDGMENT by the impugned order dated 03.10.1997. As noted the petitioner has admittedly encroached on the government land to the extent of 2776 sq.mtrs. Such an encroachment is not out of necessity or by a person of no means. In fact, the petitioner is factory owner and possession of the encroached land is for his personal use and occupation. The petitioner encroached and occupied the substantial area of the government land without any permission. He does not have any vested right to insist that such encroachment must be regularised. In fact, the Secretary in the year 1985 though accepted his request for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation, provided for penalty should be charged for the same. The Collector quantified the penalty on the basis of the market rate of the land assessed at Rs.45/- sq. mtr. The petitioner has not raised any dispute about fixation of the market rate. The petitioner at no point of time has urged that such quantification, was unreasonable. His only contention is that the market rate should have been fixed with relevance to the year 1984-85 when the Secretary desired that the occupation of the petitioner should be regularised. For variety of reasons, the stand of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Firstly, the petitioner, as noted above, is not a man of no means. Secondly, he did not occupy the land out of no choice. He therefore cannot be equated with the hutment dweller or a small farmer. He occupied substantial area of the government land for his personal use. For years he has not paid any amount for such occupation. If he wants that the land should be sold by the Government in his favour, he must be prepared to pay the market price. SCA/463/1998 4/4 JUDGMENT With passage of time, the problem has further got compounded. Even the demand of Rs.2,42,937-70 presently would not be appropriate price for the land in question. The land price have gone up astonishingly in the interregnum. The land is situated on national highway near Wankaner town which connects Kandla port with the rest of the country. By all accounts, therefore, the land presently would be valuable land. Under the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities below. Having said that, as a last chance, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the Government for regularisation of his occupation on presently prevailing market rate. If the petitioner makes such declaration before the authority within a period of four weeks from today, his request shall be examined considering the present situation including the fact whether for widening of the national highway, such land is required or not. If the petitioner makes such an application within prescribed time limit, the Government shall not evict him till his application is disposed of. Alternatively, if the petitioner fails to make such application within time period so prescribed, it will be open for the respondents to take steps for his eviction. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged. ( Akil Kureshi, J. ) kailash, p.s.