JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petitions, the learned Collector, Porbandar has challenged the order dated 14.7.2011 passed by Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. JMN/PRB/7/2007, whereby the learned SSRD has directed the learned Collector, Porbandar to regularise the encroachment of the private respondents herein by taking market value, as per the Government Resolution of the Revenue Department dated 8.1.1980. Since the common question of facts and law are involved in all these petitions, they were earlier ordered to be heard together.

2. The facts of the mater Special Civil Application No. 10174 of 2014 is taken as lead matter. The brief fact of the petition is that there is a government gaucher land bearing Survey No. 208 paiki, situated at village Chhaya, Taluka and District: Porbandar, and the same was encroached upon by the private respondents in 1988 where against the private respondents, proceedings were initiated under Section 61 of the Land Revenue Code before the Mamlatdar, Porbandar. Learned Mamlatdar found that the five respondents have encroached upon the land and were ordered to pay due assessment for all 15 years of unauthorised occupancy and has also order to vacate the land in question. Thereafter, the private respondents moved an application dated 22.7.2004 before the Collector for regularisation of their unauthorised occupancy, which came to be rejected by the Collector by order dated 19.3.2007. The same was challenged by the private respondents by way of aforesaid revision application before the learned SSRD. By the impugned order, the learned SSRD has directed the learned Collector to regularise the encroachment of the respondents by charging the market price as per the Government Resolution dated 8.1.1980.

2.1 The main contention of the learned Collector, Porbandar is that the land in question is of the Gauchar land and the observations made by the learned SSRD is not in consonance with the Government Resolution. He has also contended that it is not a waste land. It is also contended that there are various government officers and residential areas near the land in question and, therefore, also the land in question cannot be declared as agricultural land. He has also contended that to remove encroachment is the main object of the Government Resolution and for public purpose such land may be needed in future. It is also contended that the respondent himself and his 5 brothers are hailing from a single family and has encroached upon 12 Acres and 00 Guntha of the land. It is contended that if they succeed in regularising the land, it may encourage other persons too to encroach upon Government lands. It is contended that disclosure of such cases of regularisation by the respondent was not to be treated on the same footing as each and every case has its own merits. It is prayed to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order of the learned SSRD.

3. Heard Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP for the petitioner and Mr. Nishit Gandhi, learned advocate for Mr. Satyam Chhaya, learned advocate for the private respondents.

4. Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP has vehemently reiterated the contention raised in the memo of the petition and has submitted that the order passed by the learned Collector as well as learned Mamlatdar were in consonance in law and proper one. He has submitted that learned SSRD has committed error of facts and law in directing to regularisation of the land in favour of the respondents. While inviting the attention of the Court on the Government Resolution dated 8.1.1980, the learned AGP submitted that there is a cut-off date mentioned in the Government Resolution, according to which the unauthorised occupation of the land prior to 31.3.1972 could be regularised whereas in the present case alleged unauthorised land is of the year 1988 and, therefore, the provisions of the aforesaid Government Resolution cannot be made applicable. He has submitted tha