The court affirmed the right of a permanent leaseholder to ownership based on government resolution, ruling state delay and inaction as unfair and detrimental to leaseholder rights.

ORDER :

D.N.RAY, J.

1. Having heard Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. A. R. Thacker, learned advocate with Mr. Shivang A. Thacker for the respondent No,1, 1.2 to 1.4 and Mr. Nikhilesh J. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1 The land in dispute, bearing Revenue Survey No. 11, City Survey No. 38, Survey No. 3361, admeasuring 14 acres and 0 gunthas, situated at Mouje Anjar, Taluka and District Kutch (hereinafter referred to as “the said land”), was originally granted on leasehold basis by the erstwhile Ruler of Kutch under an order dated 30.03.1935. The lease was granted for a term of 25 years to one Jadavji Hansraj for the specific purpose of establishing and operating a ginning and processing unit. The grant was subject to certain terms and conditions. It appears from the record that the said Jadavji Hansraj transferred the said land to one Somchand Shankarlal Shah. Subsequently, in the year 1947, the transferee in turn conveyed the land to Premchand Vrajlal Shah. Thereafter, in the year 1969, Premchand Vrajlal Shah, by way of a gift deed, transferred the said land to Gulabchand Devraj Shah, the father of respondent no. 1 herein.

2.2 On 25.07.1977, the City Survey Superintendent, Anjar, passed an order recognizing Gulabchand Devraj Shah as the permanent leaseholder of the said land. However, the said order was not approved by the State Government on the ground that the land had not been utilized for the purpose for which it had been originally granted under the 1935 lease agreement. Since the ginning mill had remained closed, the authorities considered it a breach of the original lease conditions. Consequently, a case for breach of condition was registered, and a show cause notice dated 24.07.1989 was issued to Gulabchand Shah. Upon consideration of the records, the Collector, Kutch, by order dated 19.01.1990, set aside the order of the City Survey Superintendent dated 25.07.1977 and directed that the said land shall vest in the State Government.

2.3 Aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.1990, Gulabchand Shah preferred a revision application before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), being Revision Case No. SRD/JMN/KUTCH/27/1990, which, by order dated 26.11.1990, upheld and confirmed the order of the Collector. Dissatisfied with the said order, Gulabchand Shah approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 6593 of 1991. By order dated 30.12.1999, this Court allowed the said petition and quashed the orders dated 19.01.1990 and 26.11.1990 passed by the State Authorities. As a result, respondent no. 1 herein was recognized as the permanent leaseholder of the said land. 2.4 The State Government, being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Learned Single Judge, preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 529 of 2001. However, the said appeal came to be withdrawn by order dated 23.11.2009.

2.5 During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the State Government issued a resolution dated 08.08.2001 for granting leasehold land on ownership basis to the persons holding permanent lease. In view of the said resolution, the respondent no. 1 herein submitted an application dated 02.06.2003 before the State Government, expressing willingness to deposit the requisite premium at the prevailing rate seeking ownership rights on the land in question.

2.6 After consideration of the said representation, reports were submitted and the spot inspection was conducted. On consideration of the report of the Collector, Kutch addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, the State Government vide letter dated 0