The notice of elevation of the learned advocate to the Bench of this Court has been served upon the petitioner on 19th June, 2000. The petitioner has, however, not entered appearance. The matter has been proceeded further in his absence. The petitioner is occupant of the land, Block No. 4, admeasuring 78 Are-38 sq.mtrs. of village Lola, Taluka-Padra. The said land was given to one Veribhai Mahijibhai Valand for cultivation. A revenue entry to that effect was made on 12th September, 1952. On introduction of the consolidation, the petitioner applied to get his name entered as the occupant of the said land. It was thus learnt that though the land was granted to Veribhai Mahijibhai as new tenure and impartible land, the said Veribhai Mahijibhai had transferred the land to the petitioner and had thus committed breach of conditions of the grant. The Assistant Collector, Vadodara, therefore, under his order dated 13th October, 1988, for breach of conditions of grant, forfeited the land to the State Government. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 18 of 1988 before the Collector, District-Vadodara. The Collector upheld the finding that the transfer of the said land to the petitioner was made in breach of conditions of grant; the grantee-Veribhai Mahijibhai Valand was residing at Amod, District-Bharuch; that the petitioner was cultivating the land for some twenty years. Considering the long occupation of the petitioner, the Collector directed that if the petitioner applies for grant of the said land, the grant of the said land be made to the petitioner at the penal price of two and half times the market price. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 preferred revision before the State Government. The State Government also exercised its suo motu power of revision by issuing notice on 7th July, 1990. The State Government under its order dated 31st August, 1990 confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector and the Collector in so far as the land was ordered to be forfeited to the State Government. However, the order of the Collector to the extent that the land be granted to the petitioner on payment of penal price was set-aside. The State Government reasoned that such benefit can be granted to the persons who occupy the land without the authority ie., those who have encroached upon the land. However, the present case not being one of encroachment, the order of regrant was not sustainable. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
The fact that the land was given to Veribhai Mahijibhai as a new tenure and impartible land is not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in occupation of the land since the years 1953-54. Indisputably, the transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner is unauthorized and is made in breach of conditions of grant. The order forfeiting the land to the State Government, therefore, cannot be vitiated and is confirmed. So far as the grant of the land to the petitioner is concerned, the State Government is right in holding that the instructions issued in respect of the encroachment on the Government land cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. The petitioner cannot be said to be an encroacher on the land. The order of the Government, therefore, with regard to the grant of the land to the petitioner requires to be upheld.
In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. It is, however, clarified that in the event the petitioner applies for the grant of the said land, the same shall be decided in accordance with the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
[Ms. R.M Doshit, J.] Prakash*