JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.12.2019 passed by the learned single Jude in allowing the writ petition seeking for quashing of the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Collector, Vadodara and further directing the respondent to grant non-agricultural use permission for the land-in-question, bearing Survey No. 428/1, included in the Town Planning Scheme No. 19, Final Plot No. 150 of Vadodara Kasba, Vadodara.

2. The brief facts, relevant to decide the controversy at hands, are that the land-in-question bearing Survey No. 428/1 admeasuring 98901 sq.mtrs. was granted on lease to the original petitioner/respondent herein vide order dated 14.11.1960 passed by the Collector, Vadodara. The possession was handed over to the respondent/original petitioner on 23.3.1961 and on 30.11.1961, an agreement came to be executed between the parties on certain terms and conditions enumerated therein. The relevant clauses ‘f’, ‘g’ and ‘h’ of the said agreement, which are the bone of contentions between the parties, are to be noted herein:-

“(f) That the land and factory plant etc. constructed thereon go together and can be disposed of only together.

(g) That the lands cannot be sub-divided and such sub-divisions cannot be disposed of without the permission of the Government.

(h) That the Government will be entitled to half the unearned increment in the event of sale or transfer whether outright or as a result of unredeemed mortgage and that the land so sold or transferred should be used for a purpose approved by Government if it is to be used for a purpose other than the approved industrial and commercial purpose.”

3. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the company was bound to use the land-in-question only for the purposes of the nature specified in the specific conditions of Schedule-II. One of the conditions for grant was that the land is an unalienable tenure, which was, however, subsequently modified by office order dated 08.02.1962 issued by the Commissioner, Vadodara Division, Vadodara that the word ‘unalienable’ be substituted and replaced as ‘alienable’. The result is that the respondent/original petitioner allottee got alienable right in the land-in- question subject to the conditions in Clauses ‘f’, ‘g’ and ‘h’, noted hereinabove.

4. The dispute in the instant case is about the demand of the appellant/State for half of the unearned increment in the event of the sale or transfer and that the land-in-question can be sold or transferred for a use approved by the Government, if it is to be used for the purposes other than the approved industrial and commercial purposes. It may be noted that the grant has not been revoked by the appellant/State. An application filed by the respondent/original petitioner on 2.5.2014 for revised non- agricultural use permission was rejected. Special Civil Application No. 2359 of 2013 was filed by the respondent/original petitioner, wherein the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration. Again rejection order dated 11.11.2014 was passed by the Collector, Vadodara.

5. The respondent/original petitioner again filed a fresh representation on 06.12.2016, which remained pending for long. Hence Writ Petition No. 12585 of 2019 came to be filed, wherein on the assurance given by the respondent that the Collector, Vadodara shall do the needful as per the communication dated 27.9.2018 issued by the Revenue Department, Gandhinagar, the Writ Petition was disposed of. The Collector again vide order dated 18.09.2019 rejected the application for revised non- agricultural use permission, which was the subject matter of challenge in the original writ petition, out of which the instant appeal has arisen.

6. The main contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/original petitioner is that the proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1995 came to be initiated against the original petitioner, as i