The court upheld the principle that non-utilization of land for the purpose it was allotted constitutes a breach of condition, as supported by the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and relevant ordinances.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Viral K. Shah for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Hetal Patel for the respondent No.1.

2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.08.2017 passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) (for short ‘the SSRD’) in Revision Application No.41 of 2009 whereby, the order dated 02.04.2009 passed by the Collector in Appeal Nos.3 and 7 of 2008 is upheld.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under :

3.1 The land in question was conditionally allotted to the petitioner for cultivation. In the year 2008, the petitioner preferred an application before the Mamlatdar seeking to resort the policy of the State Government of converting the new tenure land in question into old tenure.

3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Mamlatdar, Dhandhuka vide order dated 03.10.2007 granted the application of the petitioner by holding that the land in question was held by the petitioner for more than fifteen years and hence, qualified for the benefit of the policy of the State Government and therefore, the land in question was converted into old tenure land.

3.3. The said order was taken in review by the Deputy Collector, Dholka Prant, who set it aside as though the said land in question was allotted to the petitioner for cultivation, however, the same appeared to have remained fallow and hence, the order passed by the Mamlatdar converting the land in question into old tenure was set aside and proceedings of breach of conditions was initiated.

3.4. The Deputy Collector, Dholka Prant, initiated the proceedings for breach of condition when the revenue entries were presented before the same to indicate that the land in question, ever since it was allotted till 2006, has been cultivated personally by the members of the petitioner-Society. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner however could not present the books of account showing agricultural transactions since the Chairman was out of town. The Deputy Collector relying upon a report of the Mamlatdar in which it was stated that there were scattered patches from amongst the 23 parcels of land where there were growth of ‘ganda bawal’ (vid), and that the land in question was not cultivated. The Deputy Collector therefore passed order dated 20.02.2008 forfeiting the land in question into Government.

3.5. It is the case of the petitioner that both the orders passed by the Deputy Collector were challenged before the Collector, Ahmedabad vide separate Appeals and the Collector confirmed both the Orders of the Deputy Collector.

3.6. The order of the Collector was challenged before the SSRD, however, the SSRD did not interfeare with the order of the Collector by order dated 14.08.2017.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Shah for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner- Society was allotted the land in question in the year 1971 and on completion of fifteen years, the petitioner-Society applied for converting the new tenure land into old tenure which was granted by the Mamlatdar. However, the Deputy Collector had taken the order of the Mamlatdar in suo-motu revision and considering the breach of condition for allotment of the land to the petitioner- Society, the Deputy Collector set aside the order of the Mamlatdar, initiated the proceedings for breach of condition and passed an order of confiscation of the land in question for committing breach of condition by the petitioner-Society because as per the Deputy Collector, the petitioner-Society did not utilize the land in question for the purpose, for which it was given and it was kept uncultivated for about more than twenty years.

4.2. It was submitted that the Deputy Collector arrived at such finding on the basis of the application dated 01.01.2008 given by the members of the petitioner-Society and it was also pointed out before the Deputy Collector. It was stated in the application that the petitioner-Society with t