JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. 2. This intra-court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 11.07.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8449 of 2011 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 3. The appellants by way of the writ petition had challenged the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by respondent no. 1 rejecting the Revision Application challenging the order dated 03.04.2008 passed by the concerned Collector declining to regularize the encroachment made by the appellant on the Government land. 4. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge seriously erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the appellant does not have any right, title or entitlement to retain the land in question. He submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciate that the provisions of Section 61 r/w 103 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code empowers the District Collector to regularize the use of such government land for agricultural and non-agricultural purposes. 4.1 In the alternative, Mr. Gandhi, without any prejudice to his rights and contentions submitted that the appellants are in possession of the land since many years and they have also constructed a house on the said land. He submitted that large amount of investment has gone into the said land and therefore the authorities may be directed to regularize the occupancy of the appellants on the land in question by imposing appropriate penalty or premium. He submitted that breach of condition of technical nature can be regularized by imposing appropriate penalty or premium as per the Government Resolution of the State Government and therefore the authority may impose suitable penalty or premium especially when the appellants have incurred such huge expenditure for the development of the land. He submitted that the appellants are ready and willing to pay reasonable rate of the land as per today’s market price and therefore the lenient view in the matter may be taken. 5. He submitted that the appellants are ready and willing to pay reasonable rate of the land as per today’s market price and therefore the lenient view in the matter may be taken. 5. The learned Single Judge by way of the impugned judgment and order dated 11.07.2011 in Special Civil Application No. 8449 of 2011 has observed as under: “3.The admitted facts, as stated in the memo of the petition, would go to show that the petitioner is not having any title, right or entitlement to remain on the land in question. He is, in other words, admittedly an encroacher upon the land. The Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Government Resolution dated 08.01.1980, particularly paragraph 6 of the resolution, contended that the petitioner derives his right from the said resolution for getting his encroachment regularized. 4. This Court is of the view that the said submission was made before the Revisional Authority and despite that the regularization was not granted. The Court has perused the order impugned wherein, it is recorded that the Mamlatdar, Nizar, and Taluka Development Officer, Nizar, made submission that for the landless labourers, it was proposed to allot 100 sq. yards plot and for that one Shri Dayabhai Subhashbhai Patel's land was proposed to be acquired. But as the said land was encumbered, it was found that the original owner was not agreeable. The land in question is not capable of being regularized, as it was not falling under the provision of Government Resolution dated 08.01.1980. The authority has also observed that the applicant-petitioner is already having agricultural land as well as residential premises and the encroachment was deliberate and with a view to grab the land in question and in that view of the matter, the Revision Application was rejected vide order dated 02.05.2011. In my view, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the encroacher and hence the petition being bereft of merits and deserves rejection and it is accordingly rejected. No costs. ” 6. We have gone through the records of the case. The orders passed by the authorities below as well as the learned Single Judge do not reveal any infirmity and therefore we are not inclined to accept any contention raised in the present appeal. No costs. ” 6. We have gone through the records of the case. The orders passed by the authorities below as well as the learned Single Judge do not reveal any infirmity and therefore we are not inclined to accept any contention raised in the present appeal. We find that the authorities below as well as the learned Single Judge have rightly arrived at the conclusion that the appellants have encroached upon the land in question. 7. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed. However, if the appellants make a representation within a period of one month to the competent authority to regularize the purchase of the land on payment of requisite penalty/premium/market price, the competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law and on the basis of the existing relevant Government Resolutions within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation. It is clarified that the State Government shall not take any action against the appellants qua the land in question till 17.07.2014 during which period the appellants shall make a representation and the competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law and the existing resolutions, if the representation is made within a month from today. It is also clarified that the authorities may not be influenced by the orders passed by this Court while deciding the representation and the same may be considered on its own merits keeping in mind the existing policies of the government.