IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2231 of 2019 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI =============================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No =============================================

BHIKHUBHAI MANDANBHAI BAPODARA & ORS.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

=============================================

Appearance:

DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.2 MR. RAJ A TRIVEDI(7024) for the Petitioner(s) No.

1,1.1,1.2.1,1.2.2,1.2.3,1.3,1.4,1.5 VIRAL K SHAH(5210) for the Petitioner(s) No.

1,1.1,1.2.1,1.2.2,1.2.3,1.3,1.4,1.5 DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5 MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 =============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Date : 18/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. Heard Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State.

3. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has challenged the impugned order dated 24.09.2018 passed in Revision Case No.MVV/JMN/PRB/18/2018 by the respondent No.2 – Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (for short ‘the SSRD’), Ahmedabad and the order dated 27.04.2018 passed in Case No.JAMIN/1/FA.NO.65-2014/RANAVAV/106-2- 1/2018 by the respondent No.3 – Collector, Porbandar, wherein, the petitioner’s application for extension of lease dated 05.04.2012 came to be rejected qua the land allotted to the petitioner bearing Survey No.106/2/1 admeasuring 1-28-49 Hector-Are-Sq. Mtrs. (New Survey No.2125 1-28-50 Hector-Are- Sq. Mtrs.) (for short ‘subject land’) for plantation of fruit bearing trees, which came to be confirmed by the learned SSRD. The aforesaid has given rise to the filing of the present petition.

4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus:

4.1 The petitioner’s father was allotted the subject land as referred to herein above, on lease for the plantation of fruit bearing trees on 13.09.1972 for the period of 30 years. The petitioner’s father expired in the year 1988 and the entry of the legal heirs was mutated on 24.02.1990 by mutation entry No.10310, the same is certified.

4.2 The petitioner herein applied for renewal of lease on 27.02.2003 which came to be extended for the period of five years. The petitioner again applied for renewal of lease on noticing that the period of lease would come to an end. The respondent No.3 again extended the period of lease for the next five years.

4.3 The petitioner again applied for renewal of lease noticing that the lease period would be over before the respondent No.3 on 05.04.2012. The respondent No.3 instead of renewing the lease, in-spite of the positive opinions by the respondent Nos.4 and 5, ordered to vest the land-in-question with the respondent – State on flimsy ground and the said order is confirmed by the respondent No.2 herein.

5. Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father was originally allotted the land for plantation of fruit bearing trees for a period of 30 years lease on 13.09.1972 and since then the petitioner’s father and now the petitioners herein are in possession of the land-in-question and planting and growing various trees. The petitioner herein has incurred huge expenses in the said land. The petitioner planted and cultivated around 260 trees in the land-in-question by building a varanda in the land-in-question, which can be seen from the panchnama carried out by the respondent No.5. It is submitted that while extending the lease of the land-in-question the second time, on 10.07.2009, the respondent No.3 imposed an additional condition of planting minimum 1000 fruit bearing trees per hector in consonance