Judgment A.L. Dave, J.—This petition arises out of an order passed by Dy. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No. 38 of 1997 passed on 05.08.2000. The petitioners also challenged the order passed by Collector, Jundagadh on 09.01.1997, whereby the Collector rejected the petitioners’ request for renewal of lease of the land granted to the petitioners by order dated 30.05.1965 (Annexure-C) for a period of thirty years. The said lease was initially granted to the father of the petitioners. It relates to Survey No. 970 admeasuring 1 acre and 8 gunthas of land situated in the outskirts of Village-Dari Tal. Veraval, Distt. Junagadh. The lease term was supposed to expire on 30.06.1995, and therefore, the petitioners applied for renewal of the lease on 20.12.1994. The renewal is denied mainly on the ground that sufficient number of trees are not grown by the petitioners on the land, whereas it is indicated by the petitioners that, in fact, as many as 236 trees were found to be standing and the panchnama was drawn. According to the petitioners, if small and growing trees are considered, the number could still be more. The petitioners have developed the land by arranging for water supply and have invested huge amount in the land for its development. 2. Learned advocate, Mr. Desai for the petitioner submitted that when the lease was granted, no such condition formed a part of the lease, and now, the insistence, on part of the respondent authorities for growing a particular number of trees, is unfair and is based on a subsequent decision. Learned advocate submitted that even for the number of trees, there are no specific regulations or norms fixed by the Government and it varies from land to land, area to area and person to person. In such eventuality, the denial of renewal of lease on this ground is arbitrary. 3. Learned advocate, Mr. Desai has relied on decision of this Court in case of The Kulmukhatyar of Rabari Kana Rama Shri Sureshchandra Devkaran vs. The State of Gujarat rendered on 14.11.1994 in Special Civil Application No. 8436 of 1993 and Hiruben Bijalbhai Harijan & Ors. vs. Special Secretary, Revenue Dept. (Appeals), Gujarat & Ors., [ AIR 2005 Guj. 316 ]. Mr. Desai has relied on decision of this Court in case of The Kulmukhatyar of Rabari Kana Rama Shri Sureshchandra Devkaran vs. The State of Gujarat rendered on 14.11.1994 in Special Civil Application No. 8436 of 1993 and Hiruben Bijalbhai Harijan & Ors. vs. Special Secretary, Revenue Dept. (Appeals), Gujarat & Ors., [ AIR 2005 Guj. 316 ]. Mr. Desai has also relied on the decision in case of Brij Lal vs. Board of Revenue and Ors., [ AIR 1994 SC 1128 ] and Charan Singh vs. State of Punjab, [ (1997) 1 SCC 151 ]. 4. The petition is opposed to by learned AGP, Mr. Shah. He submitted that renewal of lease is not a right and, the decision taken by the Collector, Junagadh, is based on the Government’s directions and decisions. It is also pointed out that rejection of renewal of lease is also on the ground of illegal mutation of land. He submitted that the petition is, therefore, required to be dismissed. To this, Mr. Desai has submitted that the mutation entries were made in favour of the sons of the original lessee-the petitioners, and the same were certified way back in 1972 and have attained finality. The mutation is, as such, not in favour of a third party and it has been therefore given undue importance by the respondent authority. Learned AGP is not in a position to controvert this fact-situation. 5. Having regard to the rival submissions, what emerges is a fact that when the lease was granted in 1965, there was no condition whatsoever about growing of trees or growing of particular number of trees. It is also a fact that during this thirty years period, the petitioners have developed the land and as many as 236 trees are standing on the land even as per the panchnama drawn by the respondent authorities. Learned Advocate for the petitioners during the course of his submissions, upon instructions from the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay a reasonable rent on the leased land from the date of renewal that may be determined by the Collector, Junagadh. To show their bonafides, the petitioners are ready to deposit an amount of Rs. 1 lakh with the District Collector, Junagadh, within a period of four weeks from today. 6. To show their bonafides, the petitioners are ready to deposit an amount of Rs. 1 lakh with the District Collector, Junagadh, within a period of four weeks from today. 6. In light of the above facts, when there is no specific policy pointed out to this Court, requiring growing of particular number of trees and when there is no condition in the lease document about growing of trees, the rejection of renewal by the Collector does not seem to the Court to be well founded. However, it appears that by efflux of time, certain decisions have been taken by the Government and resolutions have been passed. Since the lease is to be renewed, such resolutions cannot be altogether ignored and ends of justice would be met, if Respondent No. 2, Collector, Junagadh, is directed to reconsider the petitioners’ application for renewal. It would be reasonable to expect from the Collector to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the promise held out to the petitioners when the initial grant was made in the year 1965 and also to consider that consistent with the promise held out to the petitioners, the petitioners have invested their thirty years of life in developing the land. The policies introduced or decisions taken at the subsequent point of time need to be viewed in light of the fact that the grant is given to an individual and when initial lease was made, there was no such condition. 7. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. The same is allowed. Orders impugned in the petition are set aside. Respondent No. 2, Collector, Junagadh, is directed to reconsider the petitioners’ application for renewal of lease in light of above observations. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. P P P P P