JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. RULE. Mr. Ishan Joshi, learned AGP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking direction to set aside the communication dated 19.06.2020 by the respondent no. 2-Collector, Bhavnagar addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, New Sachivalya, Gandhinagar.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 02.01.2012, learned Additional Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department had remanded the matter of the petitioner back to the respondent-Collector with several directions referring to the Government Resolution dated 08.01.1980 pertaining to regularizing government land which was in possession of the petitioner for cultivation.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that despite detailed directions were given by the Secretary (Appeals) for following of the provisions of the aforesaid resolution more particularly, Paragraph No. 4 of the said resolution and to decide the matter upon remand. The Collector belatedly, vide order dated 19.06.2020 had issued communication which indicates that the Collector has completely flouted directions therein.

5. Over and above, the Collector has proposed to adopt a completely new policy for the valuation which was brought into operation in the year 2019. It is submitted that there was no reason for the Collector to seat over the remand order since 2012 and wait for the new policy to come into operation in the year 2019 and convey the proposal as per the new policy of the evaluation. Therefore, proposal which is forwarded under the impugned communication is not in consonance with the directions of the Secretary nor it is made within period during which the previous policy was in operation and now, as a result, the petitioner sought to be burdened by the new policy of the evaluation, whereas, at the relevant time, the applicant had already expressed the willingness to pay the amount with interest by taking into consideration the previous policy.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that the respondent-Collector has committed an error in not referring to relevant clause of the Land Revenue Code which was referred to by the Secretary in its order. Hence also, the impugned communication, if acted upon, will not be serving the purpose, as desired by the order of the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) and also frustrate the cause of the petitioner.

7. As against this, learned AGP has contested that the application mainly on the ground of lack of proper pleadings, as neither the petitioner has produced the resolution of 2019 which is the new policy nor the petitioner has produced on record the communication dated 11.06.2018 which is cited in the reference. In this regard. He refers and relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya, Gramin Bank vs. Chand Behari Kappor, (1998) 7 SCC 469.

8. Learned AGP also submitted that the petition does not deserve to be considered even on the ground that the communication is the final conclusion, and therefore, there is no cause of action for which the petition can be filed.

9. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the documents on record, it trasnpires that the petitioner belongs to a scheduled Caste and the father of the petitioner was given government waste land being revenue Survey No. 31P in the year 1968-69 by Gram Panchayat of Chokva Village for his survival and the father of the petitioner with his hard work made the land cultivable and after the father of the petitioner passed away, the petitioner is cultivating the said land and takes care of his family from the income of the land. That the petitioner has no other source of income.

10. As per the government resolution being DBN-1072-28765-L dated 08.01.1980 the government of Gujarat with a view and benevolent purpose to regularize the land occupied by the persons belonging to general category and sch