A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) IN the case of Peoples Union v. Union of India reported in AIR 1982 SC 1473 the Supreme Court has inter alia observed:"the Rule of Law does not mean that the protection of law must be available only to a fortunate few or that the law should be allowed to be prostituted by the vested interests for protecting and upholding the status quo under the guise of enforcement of their civil and political rights". It is rarely that a judgment should start with the observations made by the Supreme Court in some other case. But in this case a public limited company has been able to withhold the payment of rent of the land occupied by it for a period of 25 years out of the total period of 30 years of lease. Hence one is reminded of the aforesaid observations made by the Supreme Court and one is tempted to ask Has the legal process been not misused and the Rule of Law not perverted under the guise of protection and enforcement of civil rights ? Has it not become possible for a public limited company in private sector to retain public money for private gains for a period of about quarter of a century on account of wonderful working of the Laws Delay and on account of relatively `soft attitude of the bureaucracy ? ( 2 ) THE petitioner-Associated Cement Companies Ltd. is a well-known public limited company carrying on business of manufacturing of cement at Dwarka. The cement unit is known as Dwarka Cement Works. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-Company got the land admeasuring 337 acres and 30 gunthas from the erstwhile State of Baroda on lease. The lease was for a period of about 30 years. It commenced from December 24 1929 From the record of the petition it is clear that even according to the petitioner the land was granted to the petitioner-Company for the purpose of manufacture of portland cement and natural cement and for purposes connected therewith (See para 3 of Annexure B to the petition ). The impugned order passed by the Collector Jamnagar also very clearly mentions that the land has been leased for the purpose of manufacturing of portland cement and natural cement. The initial period of lease expired in the year 1961. The impugned order passed by the Collector Jamnagar also very clearly mentions that the land has been leased for the purpose of manufacturing of portland cement and natural cement. The initial period of lease expired in the year 1961. The lease was to be renewed for a further period of 30 years. The amount of lease was required to be determined but the matter remained being tossed up from the office of Mamlatdar Dwarka to the office of the Collector Jamnagar then to the office of State Government at Gandhinagar and then to the office of the petitioner-Company. ( 3 ) THE Government ultimately as per its order dated 3-5-1975 decided that the total land held by the petitioner was 337 acres and 30 gunthas. Out of this much land 4 acres and 563 41 gunthas of land be deducted and the remaining land i. e. land admeasuring 333 acres and 49 gunthas be given on further lease for 30 years. The lease amount should be determined at the prevailing rate i. e. the Consulting Surveyor should determine the market rate as in the year 1981 and the rent should be charged at the rate of 6% of the market rate so arrived at. Pursuant to the aforesaid Government order the Collector Jamnagar passed an order dated April 14 1977 two years after the order dated 3-5-1975 passed by the State Government. The Collector Jamnagar determined the rent as follows: Situation of the Rate at which the land and different- Rent to be levied Survey Nos. at from 11 to onwards 31 Village Dwarka 26 488. 12 74 773. 68 Village Varvala 2 542. 55 2 542. 55 Village Charakla 1 941. 9 1 941. 9 ( 4 ) THE Collector Jamnagar also directed that the petitioner-Company shall have to enter into lease deed accordingly. Thus after a period of about 17 years from the date of expiry of the lease period the amount of lease came to be determined. The Company instead of honestly paying the amount of lease together with arrears started raising various contentions. The Company disputed the manner of determination of lease and raised various other contentions. Thus after a period of about 17 years from the date of expiry of the lease period the amount of lease came to be determined. The Company instead of honestly paying the amount of lease together with arrears started raising various contentions. The Company disputed the manner of determination of lease and raised various other contentions. The Collector Jamnagar being exasperated by the stand adopted by the Company ultimately as per his letter dated November 3 1983 informed the Company that if the Company felt aggrieved it may approach the Government but meanwhile the Company must pay the entire amount within three months otherwise his office will be constrained to take action for the cancellation of the order and for recovering the possession of the land. Thereafter the petitionercompany approached the State Government by way of revision. The Government by its order dated June 16 1984 resolved that the Collector Jamnagar had passed the order pursuant to the Government Yadi dated 3 Therefore no revision application to the Government would lie. Thereafter sometime in the month of November 1984 the petitioner approached this High Court and filed the present petition challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the Collector by which the amount of lease has been determined. ( 5 ) THE petitioner-Company contends that the Collector has taken into consideration the entire land admeasuring about 333 acres as non-agricultural land for the purpose of determining the rent. That the rent has been determined on the basis of the market value of the entire land and 6 of the market value has bee fixed as rent. This according to the petitioner is not permissible. The petitioner contends that the petitionercompany uses only 7 acres and 23 gunthas of land for non-agricultural purposes and the other land remains unused. Therefore the basis (i. e. nonagricultural use of the land) adopted by the Collector should be applied only in respect of 7 acres and 23 gunthas of land and for the rest of the land the basis should be that of agricultural land and not that of nonagricultural land as determined by the Collector. 564 6 Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Section 48 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Rules 80 and 81 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules. 564 6 Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Section 48 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Rules 80 and 81 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the Government order dated 3-5-1975 which has been produced at Annesure I together with affidavit-inreply filed by the respondent. Section 48 provides that the land revenue shall be assessed with reference to the use of the land. On this basis it is contended that the Company uses the land admeasuring 7 acres and 30 gunthas only for non-agricultural purpose and the rest of the land remains unused and therefore the rent for the rest of the land should be determined on the basis that it is agricultural land. ( 6 ) THERE is no substance in the argument based on the provisions of Section 48 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Rules 80 and 81. As per the provisions of Section 45 of the Code land revenue is leviable on every land whether applied to agricultural or other purposes and wherever situated unless it is wholly exempted from the payment of land revenue. Sections 48 and 52 provide that as to how this revenue is to be assessed and levied. Section 48 provides that the land revenue leviable on any land under the provisions of the Code shall be assessed with reference to the use of the land which may be for the purpose of agriculture or for the purpose of building or for the purpose other than agriculture or building and if land assessed for use for any specific purpose is used for any other purpose the assessment fixed under the provisions of this Act upon such land shall notwithstanding that the term for which such assessment may have been fixed has not expired be liable to be altered and fixed at a different rate by the prescribed authority. In this connection reference may be made to the observations made by the Division Bench of this High Court consisting of P. N. Bhagwati C. J. (as he then was) and N. K. Vakil J. in the case of Digvijaysinhji Salt Works v. State reported in 11 GLR 249 which are as follows:"it is apparent that the fixation of assessment of land revenue is a function entrusted to the Collector and the Collector fixes it at his discretion subject to the Land Revenue Rules in exercise of the statutory power conferred upon him under the Code. The rent payable by a tenant to the Government under a lease is on the other hand a matter of contract between the tenant and the Government. When rent is agreed upon between the tenant and the Government it is a bilateral transaction resulting from consensus between the parties unlike fixation of assessment which is an exercise of statutory power by the Collector. The concept of rent payable under a lease is entirely different from that of assessment fixed under the provisions of the Code and the Land Revenue rules". ( 7 ) THUS it is clear that the provisions of Section 48 would not be applicable. to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Section 48 of the Code and Rules 80 and 81 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules provide for the assessment of land revenue and this provision does not provide for the basis of the determination. of rent when the government leases its land to other private parties. In the instant case the relationship between the company and the Government has come into 565 existence on account of the contact between the parties. The Government is the lessor and the petitioner-Company is the lessee. There is no statutory obligation on the Government to lease the land and that too at a particular rate of rent. The Government has adopted a standard for fixation of rent and the same is reflected in the order passed by the Government on 3-5-1975 (i. e. Annexure I to affidavit-in-reply ). The standard adopted is that the Consulting Surveyor should determine the market value of the land and rent be charged at the rate of 6% of such market value. The standard adopted by the Government is quite fair and reasonable. The standard adopted is that the Consulting Surveyor should determine the market value of the land and rent be charged at the rate of 6% of such market value. The standard adopted by the Government is quite fair and reasonable. If the petitioner-Company feels that the rent is exorbitant and/or excessive then the petitioner-Company is free not to occupy the land on lease. The relationship between the parties arises out of contract. The contact cannot be imposed either upon the petitioner-Company or upon the Government. If the contention of the petitioner-Company is accepted then it would amount to directing the Government to enter into contact of lease as per the terms and conditions dictated by the petitioner-Company. When there is no statutory obligation on the Government to grant the land on lease at a particular rate of rent the Government cannot be forced to enter into a contract of lease as desired by the Company. In fact such a petition is not maintainable at all. ( 8 ) THE contention of the petitionercompany that the amount of lease should be determined on the basis of the actual use to which the land is put by the Company has also no merit. Even for the sake of argument if it is assumed that the provisions of Section 48 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case the user of land has got to be determined by referring to the lease deed. One should find out for what purpose the land has been leased out. The purpose of the lease would and should determine use of the land. The amount of lease has to be determined on the basis of the purpose for which the land is leased. In the instant case obviously the purpose is non-agricultural i. e. manufacturing of portland cement and natural cement. If the contention of the Company is accepted then the determination of lease amount may even wry from year to year. In one year the Company may use the entire land admeasuring 333 acres for manufacturing purpose. In another year it may not use the entire land at all and keep the factory closed. In third year only 5 to 10 acres land my be used. Thus the Company may go on changing the user of the land at its sweet will. In another year it may not use the entire land at all and keep the factory closed. In third year only 5 to 10 acres land my be used. Thus the Company may go on changing the user of the land at its sweet will. If on this basis the rent is to be determined the contract itself will become unworkable. If at all it works it would work only as desired by the petitioner-Company. No sane person would enter into such type of contract and no reasonable person would ever construe any contract in this manner. It is astounding that such contention is raised and much more astounding that on the basis of such contention the petitionercompany has been able to retain the public money for private gains for a period of about 25 year (that from the year 1961 onwards till today ). There is no merit in the contention. The conduct of the petitioner Company in retaining the public money with it for so many years is certainly not credit-worthy. If at all the Company did not use the land to the extent of 325 acres and kept the same unused and also wished to keep the same unused then in fairness to the Government the land should have been surrendered to the Government so that 566 the nations resources could have been put to some better utilisation. The petitioner-Company cannot sit over the land keep the same unused and indulge into litigation and retain the public money with it. ( 9 ) THE petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of court. The petitioner-Company has retained with it more than Rs. 10. 50 lakhs of public money for all these years (see affidavit in-reply para 2 (h) ). Against the dues of lakhs of rupees the petitioner-Company has paid only Rs. 69 0 which the Government has not accepted and has kept the same in suspense account. Now after a period of about 25 years from the date of commencement of the lease when the Company will pay (Alas ! When will it pay ?) it will be paying not even the interest amount accrued on the amount which belonged to the Government. At the prevailing market rate of interest at the end of about 3 to 4 years the principal amount becomes double. When will it pay ?) it will be paying not even the interest amount accrued on the amount which belonged to the Government. At the prevailing market rate of interest at the end of about 3 to 4 years the principal amount becomes double. Calculating on this basis the Company will not be paying even the amount of interest accrued on the amount of lease. It is clear that the petitioner-Company will stand to benefit even from the amount of interest accrued on the principal amount of lease retained by it. Thus the litigation. pays to those who can afford to pay few thousands. The `laws delay works wonder for them. Delay pays dividends to the rich and affluent. Only the poor and people without means to fight injustice and/or obtain justice would suffer on account of the Laws delay. It is difficult to conceive of a case wherein a small farmer or a businessman or a factory owner has been allowed to retain the land occupied by him without payment of lease for a period of 25 years. Can this happen without unduly soft attitude of the bureaucracy and without wonderful working of the `laws delay? ( 10 ) NO other contention is raised. The petition has got to be rejected and it is hereby rejected. Notice discharged. ( 11 ) AT this stage the counsel for the petitioner prays that the ad interim relief granted earlier on December 23 1984 by which the Collector has been directed not to recover rent as determined by him as per order dated April 14 1977 be continued for some time. Now in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Asstt Collector of Central Excise Chandan Nagar West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Others reported in AIR 1986 SC 330 (= 1985 GLH 25 ) the legal position is settled. Even if such type of petition is required to be admitted on the ground that there is prima facie case then also as laid down by the Supreme Court where the question of public revenue is involved the court should not grant interim relief and stay the recovery of public revenue. Therefore at this stage when the matter is being rejected there is no reason why the ad interim relief granted earlier should be continued. Therefore at this stage when the matter is being rejected there is no reason why the ad interim relief granted earlier should be continued. Moreover nowhere in the petition it is stated that the petitionercompany is not in a financial position to pay the entire arrears of rent immediately. Therefore on the basis of all the facts and circumstances of the case there is no case for continuing the ad interim relief. Hence the request is rejected. The ad interim relief is vacated. Petition rejected .