State Of Gujarat & 1

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0 Present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein­original petitioner Shri Vadnagar Nagrik Mandal challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 2.3.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No. 92 of 2005, by which, said Special Civil Application preferred by the appellant herein ­original petitioner challenging the order passed by the Collector, Mehsana rejecting the application of the appellant to renew the lease with respect to the land which was leased in favour of the appellant in the year 1968 confirmed by the order passed by the State Government passed in Revision Application, has been dismissed.

2.0 The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nutshell are as under:

2.1. That initially the land bearing survey No. 3118 paiki 3 acres and 8 gunthas of village Vadnagar, Tal: Kheralu, Dist. Mehsana was granted on lease by the State Government to the appellant herein for B.N. High School, for playground on token rent of Rs.1 per year for 15 years as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Form “DD” of Rule 32 A of Land Revenue Rules as well as on the further terms and conditions as mentioned in the order dated 14.10.1968. That after completion of lease period of 15 years on the application submitted by the appellant, the period of lease was further extended for a period of 15 years on the same terms and conditions on which earlier lease was granted. It appears that thereafter after completion of further lease period of 15 years, the appellant herein­original petitioner submitted the application before the Collector, Mehsana to renew the lease and the proposal was submitted by the Mamlatdar to the Prant Officer, Mehsana through him the same was sent to the office of the Collector. It appears that as the land remained idle and was not used for playground in the previous years, which was given for the playground purpose, the Mamlatdar and Prant Officer submitted the report with the opinion not to extend the period of lease. The institution was called for representation in that behalf, by issuing the notice of hearing by letter dated 12.5.1999. On the date of hearing, the Principal of B.N. High School and the Trustee of the applicant trust remained present and they also filed written reply. Thereafter considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant ­original petitioner and considering the fact that the land which was given on lease to the appellant was not used for the purpose for which it was leased i.e. playground and as the land was required for the construction of the Mamlatdar office for newly constituted Vadnagar Taluka and considering the fact that the land has been recommended for Mamlatdar office is needed by the Government as the same is touching the main road, by order dated 22.6.1999 the Collector, Mehsana rejected the application submitted by the appellant ­original petitioner to renew the lease.

2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Collector, Mehsana dated 22.6.1999 rejecting the application of the appellant for extension of lease of the land in question and / or to renew the lease, the appellant preferred Revision Application before the State Government and the State Government ­Joint Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department by order dated 25.11.2004 / 3.12.2004 dismissed the said Revision Application No. 28 of 1999 confirming the order passed by the Collector, Mehsana dated 22.6.1999.

2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders, the appellant herein­original petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.92 of 2005 and the learned Single Judge by impugned judgment and order has dismissed the said Special Civil Application.

2.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 2.3.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No.92 of 2005, the appellant herein ­original petitioner has preferred present Letters Patent Appeal.

3.0 Shri R.A. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant­original petitioner has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in dismissing the Special Civil Application by confirming the order passed by the Collector, Mehsana rejecting the application of the petitioner for renewal of lease, which came to be confirmed by the Revisional Authority.

3.1. It is submitted that as such the appellant was using some portion of the land, more particularly 4042 sq yards of the land for playground and therefore, the findings given that the land in question was not used at all for playground is factually incorrect. It is submitted that even the land in question was also not needed for construction of the Mamlatdar Office as the Mamlatdar Office was already constructed. It is further submitted that even some other land was granted on lease in favour of another institution though no application was submitted by the said institution. Therefore, it is submitted that as such action of the respondent in not renewing the lease is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3.2. It is submitted by Shri Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner that in fact some portion of the disputed land in question could not be used by the appellant in view of digging of the land by the Nagarpalika for drainage line and some was acquired / used for the road as well as shopping center. It is further submitted that even in the panchnama prepared by the Talati prepared while taking the possession in the year 2005, it is clear that some portion of the land was being used for playground. By making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Letters Patent Appeal by quashing and setting aside the order passed by both the authorities below as well as order passed by the learned Single Judge by directing the State Government / Collector and / or appropriate authority to renew the lease. It is submitted that even the appellant is also ready and willing to purchase the land which was being used by them for playground on payment of market price.

4.0 Present Appeal is opposed by Ms. Nisha Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of respondent authority. She has placed on record the copy of panchnama showing the position of the land in question as on today. It is submitted that even today the land in question is fallow land. It is submitted that as such the appellant has no right to claim renewal of the lease and cannot compel the State / Government to renew the lease. It is further submitted that even initially the lease was granted at the token rent of Rs.1 per year for a period of 15 years and thereafter the same came to be renewed for a further period of 15 years under Rule 32 A of the Land Revenue Rules and on the terms and conditions mentioned in Form No. DD of the Land Revenue Rules. It is submitted that even Rule 32 A of the Land Revenue Rules, the lease cannot be for more than 30 years. It is submitted that period of 30 years had already expired. It is submitted that as it was specifically found that the land in question was not used by the appellant for the purpose for which it was used even during the period of lease and the land in question was required by the State Government / Collector for public purpose, no illegality has been committed by the Collector in not renewing the lease and the same has been rightly confirmed by the revisional authority as well as State Government. By making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal.

5.0 Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length and perused and considered the order passed by the Collector, Mehsana rejecting the application submitted by the appellant to renew the lease as well as order passed by the revisional authority as well as impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is required to be noted that initially the land in question was given on lease to the appellant herein in the year 1968 initially for a period of 15 years for playground on the token rent of Rs.1 per year under Rule 32 A of the Land Revenue Rules and on the terms and conditions mentioned in Form No. DD of the Rules and further terms and conditions as mentioned in the said order. That thereafter, the lease came to be renewed for a further period of 15 years which has expired in the year 1998. That thereafter, application submitted by the appellant herein to renew the lease has been rejected on the ground that even during the period of lease the land in question was not used by the appellant for the purpose for which it was leased i.e. for playground and land in question is needed by the State Government. The possession has been taken by the Collector after giving an opportunity to the appellant as well as considering the report and recommendation submitted by the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector and even opinion of the concerned Nagarpalika. It has also come on record by way of affidavit in reply filed in the main petition that even thereafter the land in question is needed by the Nagarpalia for public purpose. When a pointed question was asked to the learned advocate for the appellant whether as a matter of right the appellant can pray for renewal of the lease ? The learned advocate for the appellant is not in a position to give any satisfactory reply to the same. However, it is the case of the appellant that with respect to one another institution the lease was renewed though no application for renewal was made and therefore, the appellant is claiming the right. On the aforesaid, the appellant cannot claim as a matter of right to renew the lease. Merely because, in some other case the lease might have been renewed may be without application and illegally the appellant cannot claim the right to get the lease renewed. There cannot be any negative discrimination. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that appellant cannot claim as a matter of right to renew the lease, more particularly, when the land was given on token rent at the rate of Rs. 1 in the year 1968 and it has been found that the land is required by the authority for public purpose.

6.0 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that land in question was given on lease to the appellant in the year 1968 initially for a period of 15 years on the token rent of Rs.1 year under Rule 32 A of the Land Revenue Rules and on the terms and condition mentioned in Form DD of the Rules. Rules 32 A of the Land Revenue Rules reads as under:

“Land may be leased at a nominal rent of Rs.1 a year for playgrounds or other recreational purposes to educational institutions or local bodies or for gymnas (ia/iums) recognized by Government for a term not exceeding (thirty) years by the Collector when the area and the revenue free value of the land do not exceed 5 acres (H­2­02­34) and Rs.25,000/­ in case when the lease is in favour of a Panchayat. Municipality or any other local authority and 2 ½ acres (H.1­01­17) and Rs. 5000/­ when the lease is in favour of any other public body or institution and by the Divisional Officer when the revenue free value of the land does not exceed Rs.5000/­.

Such leases shall ordinarily be executed in Form DD. The Collector may make such variations in the conditions of the lease or annex such additional conditions as he may deem necessary”.

7.0 On considering the Rule 32 A, it appears that any land belonging to the Government can be given on lease on the token rent of Rs.1 for playground for maximum period of 30 years. Those 30 years have already expired in the year 1998. Under the circumstances, otherwise also the appellant is not entitled to renew the lease.

8.0 At this stage, it is required to be noted that out of the total land admeasuring 3 acres and 8 gunthas, major portion of the land has gone under the road as well as for construction of market. Considering the present position as on today, it is fallow land because of the interim order passed by this Court which is required for public purpose. It is also required to be noted that as such possession of the disputed land in question is already taken over in the 2005.

9.0 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, present Letters Patent Appeal fails and same deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.

earlier. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the panchnama dated 6.12.2012 drawn pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 5.12.2012 the land is absolutely fallow land and even does not use by the appellant for playground and considering the fact that the land in question is fallow land which is required for other public purpose and which can be used for other public purpose, the prayer to continue the interim relief is rejected.

sd/­ (M.R.SHAH, J.) Kaushik sd/­ (S.H.VORA, J.)