SCA/1093120/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10931 of 2008 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 ? ========================================================= JASKUBHAI AMRABHAI DHADHAL - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR ANSHIN H DESAI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR SATYAM CHHAYA, AGP for Respondent(s) : ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 02/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Learned AGP, Shri Satyam Chhaya, waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. Petitioner SCA/1093120/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT herein has challenged order dated 25.8.2008 passed by Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat by which application for interim relief pending revision application came to be turned down. 2. Father of the petitioner was granted government land on lease for a period of 30 years for growing fruit trees thereon by an order dated 10.5.1968. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the condition of lease sufficient number of fruit tress have been grown on the land. Despite this, proceedings for terminating the lease for breach of the condition of growing fruit trees thereon were undertaken by the authorities. Ultimately, Collector, Junagadh passed an order on 14.3.2008 and held that there was a breach of condition since the lessee had not grown sufficient number of fruit trees on 3 Acres of land granted by the Government. Additionally, it was also found that the original lessee had expired in the year 1997 and Government would not renew the lease after expiry of original lessee. On these grounds, the Collector ordered eviction of the petitioner. 3. In the meantime, the petitioner had also separately applied for renewal of lease in his favour. 4. The case of the petitioner is that as per the conditions contained in the lease order itself sufficient number of tress were grown and the lease envisaged the renewal thereof at the end of 30 years of period or for granting the same in favour of the heirs of the lessee. SCA/1093120/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT 5. Since the entire issue is placed before this Court at interim stage, it would not be appropriate on my part to comment on the said contentions of the petitioner. Suffice to note, however, that from the revenue records also it can be seen that the petitioner has in addition to growing other fruit trees had grown 375 mango trees. The lease order in condition No.2 also provided that after completion of 30 years of period at the discretion of the Collector, lease can be renewed. Condition No.9 of the lease order provides that during the period of the lease, it would be open for the lessee as well as his heirs to enjoy the use of the land in question. 6. When prima-facie, it is pointed out that on the land in question, large number of fruit trees have been grown and when condition No.9 along with condition No.2 of the lease order required interpretation, it was not appropriate on the part of the Secretary to refuse to grant interim relief thereby bringing about a situation by virtue of which the possession of the petitioner of the land in question enjoyed continuously since the year 1968 and on which after putting in labour and investment, orchard has been made be taken away summarily. 7. Under the circumstances, the impugned order 25.8.2008 is set aside. Respondent shall not operate the order passed by the Collector dated 14th March, 2008 till final disposal of the revision application. Above observations shall not come in SCA/1093120/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT way of the Secretary in taking into account all aspects of the matter including applicable Government policy while disposing of the revision application finally. 8. Rule made absolute accordingly. Petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted. (AKIL KURESHI, J.) ashish//