B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) BY way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned decision of the Government dated 3-12-81 (Annexure"b") not to allot the land in question to the petitioners. ( 2 ) XXX xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx ] ( 3 ) MR. TANNA learned advocate for the petitioners, vehemently submitted that inequal treatment has been given to the petitioners by the respondents. The respondents have granted lease and permission to Tata, which is a big industrial Unit of the Country on 6-10-81 for the similar type of land. which is at a distance of 200 mtrs. from the mean maximum tide level, but the petitioners, being a small Unit, though initially lease for 290 sq. Mtrs. of land granted to them earlier have been denied the lease by the respondents by an order dated 3-12-81 on the ground that in between the Government had taken a policy decision on 17-11-81 of not granting any land on lease, which is at a distance of 200 mtrs. from the mean maximum tide level. Thus, the impugned order at Annexure "b" is in clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and liable to be set aside. Mr. Tanna further submitted that the petitioners had the statutory and constitutional right to claim land in question on and their right is deliberately denied by the respondents by taking a late decision. If the respondents had taken the decision earlier than 17-11-81, the petitioners would have been given the land on lease by the respondents. He submitted that he has been given land under s. 60 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. He submitted that under Rule 54 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules, petitioners have statutory right to claim land on lease. I am afraid, I can not accept this submission raised by Mr. Tanna. It is not a statutory right It is only under these provisions that the land has to be leased out. It does not confer any right to the petitioners to claim lease. Mr. Tanna was unable to point out what constitutional right the petitioners had to claim the land on lease. In my opinion, no constitutional right of the petitioners has been violated. If there is any determination then only Article 14 of the Constitution of India can be invoked by the petitioners. Mr. Tanna was unable to point out what constitutional right the petitioners had to claim the land on lease. In my opinion, no constitutional right of the petitioners has been violated. If there is any determination then only Article 14 of the Constitution of India can be invoked by the petitioners. ( 4 ) EVEN challenge regarding inequal treatment made out by the petitioners has also no substance. It is true that initially the Collector had taken decision on 21-3-80 to lease out land in question to the petitioners. But that decision was stayed by this court on a petition filed by Century Company, which was also claiming the said land and ultimately, it was set aside by this court by an order dated 15-4-81 and the respondents were directed to decide the claims of the parties of that petition afresh. It is also true that while passing that order, the possession of the land of the petitioners was not disturbed and it was ordered to continue with them till final disposal of the applications of the respective parties. It is only in the month of November 1981 that a policy decision was taken not to lease out the land for salt manufacturing, which is at a distance of 200 mtrs. from the mean maximum tide level of the area. But, in the case, petitioners as well as Century Company both were claiming the. land in question and, therefore, there was some delay in taking the decision and ultimately before the decision is taken by the Government on 3-12-81, a policy decision was taken on 17-11-81. It is true that Tata had applied in the month of August 1981 but it was granted the land on 6-10-81, which was totally a different land. In these circumstances, how it can be said that the petitioners were not equally treated by the respondents. A most important event which took place between two decisions; on 6-10-81 in case of Tata and on 3-12-81 in case of the petitioners and the Century Company, on 17-11-81 was a policy decision taken by the Government not to grant land on lease for salt manufacturing, which is at a distance of 200 mtrs. from the mean maximum tide level. There would have been some substance in the submission made by Mr. from the mean maximum tide level. There would have been some substance in the submission made by Mr. Tanna if, after the policy decision taken by the Government, Tata was granted land and the petitioners were not granted. But that is not the case here. Therefore, the submission made by Mr. Tanna that the petitioners were given ihequal treatment only because they are small Unit and Tata is big industrial Unit of the country, hence the impugned order at annexure "b" is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, is devoid of any merit and liable to be rejected. ( 5 ) LASTLY, Mr. Tanna submitted that if the Government had cancelled the lease, which is granted in favour of the Tata, pursuant to its decision dated 17-11-81, then the petitioners would not have made any grievance about it. But, when the Government has passed an order in case of the petitioners not to grant land on lease to anyone as per its policy decision and not revoked its decision in favour of Tata it is not proper and the government should cancel the lease granted in favour of Tata. In my view, the submission of Mr. Tanna is frivolous and made in exasperation, which can not be accepted, for three reasons, (1) that Tata company is not the party in this case, (2) there is no such averments nor prayer in the petition, and (3) even if there was such prayer in the petition such prayer could not have been granted by this court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is beyond even imagination of anyone that such argument can even be advanced. Be that it may, as held by me, it is of without any substance, hence it is rejected. At this stage, it may be stated that in para 5 of the reply-affidavit dated 11-3-82 filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the respondent No. 1 is now considering to modify the order by which the land was ordered to be lease to Tata so as to see that the policy framed by the Government in November 1981 is not violated. We do not know whether Government has modified the order by this time or not. More than 11 years have passed after filing of the affidavit. Neither Mr. Tanna nor Mr. We do not know whether Government has modified the order by this time or not. More than 11 years have passed after filing of the affidavit. Neither Mr. Tanna nor Mr. Pujari, learned a. G. P. is in a position to state what happened thereafter in the matter. Whether decision is modified or not, it would not make any difference. It is upto the Government to take decision whether to modify its previous order or not. It is totally immaterial for this court to decide the issue in question. Therefore, this submission of Mr. Tanna is also rejected. ( 6 ) IN view of the above discussion, the challenge to the impugned order at Annexure "b" in this petition fails on all counts. No other contentions have been pressed by Mr. Tanna in this petition except the above contentions. There is no substance or merit in any of the aforesaid contentions raised by Mr. Tanna. This petition is misconceived and required to be dismissed. Accordingly, this petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. Ad interim relief stands vacated. ( 7 ) MR. Tanna at this stage prayed that the ad interim relief granted earlier by this court be continued for some time to enable him to obtain appropriate orders from the higher court. He pointed out that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question since 1980 and their possession has been protected by an ad interim order passed by this court at the admission stage, which was passed on the condition that the petitioners shall not start manufacturing activities; nor put. any constructions in connection therewith cr otherwise and they have strictly complied with that conditions till today. As against that mr. Pujari, learned A. G. P. appearing for the respondents vehemently submitted that the possession of the petitioners on the land in question is unauthorised and once their petition is dismissed by this court, there is no question of continuing the ad interim relief regarding the possession of the land in question. He submitted that it is a Government land and without paying any pie, the petitioners continued to enjoy the possession of the land by virtue of the interim order of this court. Therefore, it should not be extended even for a day. There is lot of substance in the submission made by Mr. He submitted that it is a Government land and without paying any pie, the petitioners continued to enjoy the possession of the land by virtue of the interim order of this court. Therefore, it should not be extended even for a day. There is lot of substance in the submission made by Mr. Pujari, learned A. G. P. for the respondents. It appears from the record that the Collector, Jamnagar handed over the possession of the land in undue haste and agreed to sign the agreement in favour of the petitioners without receiving any amount for the said land from the petitioners in the year 1980. Because of the stay granted by this court in a petition filed by other Company i. e. Century Company, the possession of the petitioners regarding the land in question was protected by this court Even though the decision was taken by the Government on 3-12-81 hot to grant land on lease to anyone, the Government could not recover the possession of the land from the petitioners, because of the interim orders passed by this court in this petition. Thus, the petitioners continued to enjoy the possession of the land for all these years without any consideration. Once the petition of the petitioners is dismissed, possession of the petitioners becomes unauthorised and the petitioners can not continue the possession for a day and they shall have to hand over the possession of the land in question to the respondents immediately. This Court has found that the contentions of the petitioners raised in this petition are frivolous and without any substance and this petition is misconceived, therefore there is no question of continuing the interim relief granted earlier for a day. Petitioners continued to remain in possession of the Government land, without any consideration for the same, which does not belong to them, for all these thirteen years only because of the interim orders of this court This petition unfortunately came to be heard and decided after about more than eleven years of its filing because of one or other reason, but that circumstance by itself can not be utilised by the petitioners in their favour to continue the ad interim relief granted earlier for some time on the ground that they are in possession since last thirteen years. Therefore, the prayer made by Mr. Therefore, the prayer made by Mr. Tanna to continue the ad interim relief for some time is rejected and the petitioners are directed to hand over the possession of the land to the respondents forthwith. .