IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the petitioner's failure to demonstrate reclamation and payment of lease rent as per the lease conditions resulted in the rightful transfer of possession to the Airport Authority for public purpose, negating any entitlement to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

This intra-court Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.4.2023 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent has been disposed of with the direction to the respondents-the appellants herein to initiate appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short ‘the Act, 2013’) for regularising the acquisition of land admeasuring 64750 Sq.Mtrs, which was allotted to the original petitioner in the year 1970, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Further direction to the respondents-the appellants herein is that they shall complete the entire procedure of payment of compensation under the Act, 2013 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

2. The instant appeal has been instituted on behalf of the State of Gujarat through the Secretary, Revenue Department. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Road and Building Division-1, Airport Authority of India and the Collector, Surat have been joined as the other appellants. The challenge to the order of the learned single Judge is based on the ground that Survey No. 230 paiki 1 is a Salt-marsh land, which was granted on lease to the original petitioner namely Mr. Dinkar Nathubhai Desai vide allotment order dated 23.12.1970 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 40 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 read with the provisions of the Gujarat Khar Lands Act, 1963.

3. It is contended that the allotment order dated 23.12.1970 provided the terms and conditions of the allotment/lease with the clear understanding that such lease does not confer any right or title on the person, to whom the lease has been granted, as the sole purpose of the lease was to increase agricultural production and to earn livelihood from the agricultural income. One of the conditions of the allotment order, as incorporated therein based on sub-clause(e) of the provisions of Rule 40 the Land Revenue Rules, 1972, was “if the reclamation is not carried on with due diligence within two years, or if half the area is not reclaimed so as to be in a state fit for use for agricultural purposes at the end of ten years, and the whole at the end of twenty years, or if any land once reclaimed as aforesaid is not maintained in a state fit for use for agricultural purposes, the lease shall be liable to cancellation at the discretion of the Collector: Provided that the lessee shall at liberty during the first ten years to relinquish any area which he cannot reclaim.”

4. It is argued that as per the entries in Village Form No.12, which was not produced by the original petitioner, the land remained uncultivated during the period of initial 10 years of lease; only grass grown naturally on the land-in-question could be found until the year 1980; later during the period from 1980 to 1990, for which the records suggest that Juwar was growing. The government, however, did not receive any rent or land revenue. Since after the year 1991 the land-in-question has been shown as uncultivated (padtar) in the revenue records. The assertion made by the petitioner in the writ petition (para 3.2 thereof) that he had paid land revenue for the land in question from the date of allotment till 2016-2017, is without any evidence. Not a single proof of payment of lease rent has been brought on record. The learned single Judge has, therefore erred in ignoring the said aspect of the matter and assuming that since the petitioner has been put in possession of the land-in-question and his name was reflected in the Village Form No. 7/12, he is entitled for compensation and that the land-in-question has been illegally encroached upon by the Airport Authority without acquisition proceedings. The fact remains that the conditions of the allotment order dated 23.12.1970 has been completely overlooked by the learned single Judg