JUDGMENT :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. This Appeal lays a challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 23417 of 2005 dated 26.08.2014, whereunder order passed by the Collector dated 19.06.1992 and the order passed S.S.R.D. dated 11.06/07.2005 has been affirmed.

2. The facts in brief which has led to filing of the present Appeal, can be crystallized as under:

2.1 The petitioner was allotted a land bearing 38 admeasuring 800 sq. yards on 14.06.1982 by the State Government on a lease basis for a period of 99 years. The said allotment was on the terms and conditions specified thereunder. Said allotment was came to be cancelled in the year 1985. However, on the prayer of the writ applicant, that there was no basic amenities provided and as such construction could not be completed, Collector granted extension of time for construction for a further period of two years effective from 03.02.1986. By order dated 19.06.1992, the Collector, Dang, cancelled the lease on the ground that writ applicant had committed breach of condition Nos. 3 and 16 of the original allotment order and forfeited the amount of deposit made by the petitioner.

2.2 In almost similar circumstances, Collector by order dated 11.08.1995, cancelled the lease of the plot-holders whose plots were adjacent to petitioner’s land namely Plot Nos. 36A and 37A. Being aggrieved by such cancellation, those allottees, filed a Revision Application No. 1 of 1995 and 2 of 1995 against the order dated 11.08.1995 passed by Collector, Dang cancelling their lease who by order dated 26.10.1998, allowed the Revision Application and quashed the order dated 11.08.1995 passed by Collector, Dang and held that time limit stipulated for completing construction should be computed only after basic requirement of road, water, electricity and drainage are provided and directed the Collector to take decision in consultation with the appropriate Government.

2.3 In the meanwhile, State being aggrieved by the order of S.S.R.D. who had allowed the Revision Application No. 1 of 1995 and 2 of 1995 preferred by the plot holders of Plot Nos. 36A and 37A (37/2) filed Special Civil Application No. 470 of 2000 challenging the said order and this Court by order dated 22.03.2000 dismissed the said Special Civil Application and confirmed the order passed by Deputy Secretary (Appeals) in Revision Application No. 1 of 1995 and 2 of 1995 dated 26.10.1998.

2.4 The present Writ Applicant had also preferred Revision Application No. 3 of 1999 before the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals) challenging the order dated 19.06.1992 passed by Collector, Dang cancelling the lease namely allotment of plot and forfeiting the deposit made by the writ applicant. Said Revision Application came to be dismissed by order dated 11.06/07.2005 and being aggrieved by the said order, the Writ Applicant filed Special Civil Application No. 23417 of 2005, which came to be dismissed on 26.08.2014 affirming the order of Collector as well as Revisional Authority. Hence, present Letters Patent Appeal.

3. We have heard the arguments of Shriyuths Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner-appellant and K.M. Antani, learned AGP appearing for State. Perused the records.

4. It is the contention of learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta, though Writ Applicant has consistently contended before various authorities including S.S.R.D. and learned Single Judge that there has been hostile discrimination insofar as treating the writ applicant’s claim for setting aside the order of cancellation namely after bringing it to the notice of authorities that adjacent plot owners namely plot owners of Plot Nos. 36A and 37A who had been allotted the plots which had been cancelled on similar grounds of cancellation order passed against the writ applicant has been set aside by the Revisional Authority or the Appellate Authority and as such, there was no justification for the petitioner-writ applicant being discriminate