JUDGMENT : Abhilasha Kumari, J. 1. Rule. Ms. Amita Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Notice of Rule for the respondent in the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is heard and decided finally. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondent-State Government, to allot the remaining 20027 square meters of land as per the prevailing market price as on 06.08.2003, to the petitioner Society. Alternatively, it has been prayed that the said land be allotted as per the market price prevailing as on today. 3. The petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, bearing Registration No. GH-12891. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner Society had made an application to the State Government for the allotment of excess vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1876 ("the ULC Act" for short). On 02.05.1988, the State Government passed an order granting a total of 43432 square meters of land to the petitioner Society at the rate of Rs. 140/- per square meters, for a total consideration of Rs. 60,80,480/-. The offer of the State Government was accepted by the petitioner Society on 04.05.1988. An amount of Rs. 28,00,000/- was deposited by the petitioner Society on 29.05.1988 and land admeasuring 20,000 square meters, from Survey No. 818 and Survey No. 649/1, came to be allotted to it. However, the Society was put in actual physical possession of only 15,856 square meters. By a communication dated 27.06.1988, the State Government informed the petitioner Society that there was some dispute regarding Survey No. 630 of Village Gotri and hence, it could not allot 3398 square meters of land from said survey number. On 01.02.1989, an order came to be pass untitled foldered by the State Government directing the petitioner Society to pay Rs. 56,04,770/- for the allotment of 4,035 square meters of land. Thereafter, the petitioner Society made a representation that certain land was not suitable for construction on account of a high-tension line passing through the said land. On 01.02.1989, an order came to be pass untitled foldered by the State Government directing the petitioner Society to pay Rs. 56,04,770/- for the allotment of 4,035 square meters of land. Thereafter, the petitioner Society made a representation that certain land was not suitable for construction on account of a high-tension line passing through the said land. The representation was accepted by the State Government to the extent of 2551 square meters and the petitioner Society was put in further possession of 4962 square meters + 1733 square meters of land of Village Gotri. So, ultimately, the petitioner Society was put into possession of 20,000 square meters of land. On 30th May, 1991, an order was passed by the State Government allotting Survey No. 841 to the petitioner Society. The petitioner was directed to deposit the amount in lieu of the said allotment. Therefore, on 24.04.1992, the petitioner Society deposited Rs. 4,76,700/- before the State Government, pursuant, to which possession of land admeasuring 3450 square meters out of Survey No. 841 came to be handed over to it. However, the remaining amount of land, as per the order dated 02.05.1988, was not allotted to the petitioner society. Thereafter various communications came to be made and, at some point of time, steps were also taken by the State Govern untitled folderment in furtherance of allotting the remaining land. However, no final order came to be passed. Ultimately, on 20.01.2001, a letter was written by the State Government to the petitioner Society, informing it that due to the repeal of the ULC Act, it could not allot the remaining land to the Society. 4. Upon receipt of the said letter, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 2918 of 2001 before this Court. By an order dated 17.10.2001, this Court directed the petitioner Society to make a representation to the Land Reforms Commissioner, Revenue Department, who was further directed to consider the said representation. The untitled folder petitioner Society made a detailed representation on 30.10.2001, which came to be rejected, resulting in the filing of Special Civil Application No. 4508 of 2002. By an order dated 05.12.2002, this Court directed the petitioner to make another representation to the State Government to allot alternative land in the nearby vicinity. The petitioner made a representation dated 27.12.2002, requesting the State Government to allot 20,027 square meters of land in the nearby vicinity. By an order dated 05.12.2002, this Court directed the petitioner to make another representation to the State Government to allot alternative land in the nearby vicinity. The petitioner made a representation dated 27.12.2002, requesting the State Government to allot 20,027 square meters of land in the nearby vicinity. Thereafter, certain correspondence and communications took place between the petitioner Society and the State Government. Ultimately, a letter dated 06.08.2003 was addressed by the State Government to the petitioner Society, asking whether it was ready and willing to pay the market price for the land prevailing as on that day. By a letter dated 10.08.2004, the petitioner Society accepted the offer of the State Government by stating that, though it was not responsible for the delay, however, it did not want to enter into any conflict, therefore, it was ready to pay the market price prevailing in the year 2003, in lieu for the allotment of the remaining portion of land. Without heeding this letter of the petitioner, another letter dated 19.08.2004 came to be addressed by State Government to the petitioner Society, stating that it cannot allot land at the old price. It was further stated that as per Government Resolution dated 06.10.2001, land was required to be auctioned, therefore, the land in question cannot be allotted to the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by this communication, the petitioner preferred a third petition, being Special Civil Application No. 4087 of 2016 before this Court. By an order dated 10.08.2016, the respondent State Government was directed to consider the application dated 10.08.2004 preferred by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. As nothing further was done by the State Government in spite of repeated reminders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition. 6. Though Mr. Tattvam K. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner has filed a leave-note today, however, Ms. Trusha K. Patel, learned advocate, states that she has received instructions from Mr. Tattvam K. Patel to appear on his behalf and conduct the matter today. 7. It is submitted by Ms. 6. Though Mr. Tattvam K. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner has filed a leave-note today, however, Ms. Trusha K. Patel, learned advocate, states that she has received instructions from Mr. Tattvam K. Patel to appear on his behalf and conduct the matter today. 7. It is submitted by Ms. Trusha K. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, that despite the fact that the order dated 02.05.1988 passed by the State Government allotting 43432 square meters of land to the petitioner Society has still not been revoked, withdrawn, or modified, as of date, the State Government is not allotting the remaining portion of the land even though the Society has shown its willingness to pay the market price not only of the year 2003 as asked by the State but also at the present market rate. It is submitted that this Court has passed three orders in this regard directing the respondent-State Government to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. However, the petitioner has been compelled to engage in the fourth round of litigation as the State Government has refused to consider the request of the petitioner. 8. It is further submitted that the reason given by the State Government in the communication dated 19.08.2004, passed pursuant to the order dated 5th December, 2002 passed in Special Civil Application No. 4508 of 2002, is not at all valid as the State Government has itself addressed a communication dated 06.08.2003 to the petitioner Society, asking its willingness to pay the market price as it prevailed on that date. The State Government, therefore, cannot now invoke the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 06.10.2001, as mentioned in the said communication, as its own letter was addressed after passing of the said Government Resolution. 9. It is further submitted that the order of allotment, itself, dates back to the year 1988, when this Government Resolution had not even been issued. The reasons stated by the State Government in the letter dated 19.08.2004, therefore, are not germane and have only been stated to avoid the compliance of the orders of this Court. 10. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 18.02.2011 passed by this Court (Coram: M.R. SHAH, J.) in Special Civil Application No. 12865 of 2010 and has prayed for the issuance of similar directions in the present petition. 10. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 18.02.2011 passed by this Court (Coram: M.R. SHAH, J.) in Special Civil Application No. 12865 of 2010 and has prayed for the issuance of similar directions in the present petition. 11. This Court, by an order dated 22.02.2017, granted time to the learned Assistant Government Pleader to take instructions. Today, when the matter is taken up, Ms. Amita Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that the State Government has already taken a decision vide the communication dated 19th August, 2004 that the land in question cannot be granted to the petitioner due to the Government Resolution dated 06.10.2001, and the petitioner has also not paid the remaining amount for the allotment of the rest of the land. It is submitted that this order has not been challenged by the petitioner. 12. It is further submitted that from 1988 upto 2003, the petitioner Society has not deposited the remaining amount of the money and against amount deposited, land has already been granted to the petitioner. 13. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition and other documents on record. 14. It is clear from the material on record that an order came to be passed on 02.05.1988 by the State Government under the provisions of "the ULC Act", granting a total of 43432 square meters of land to the petitioner Society at the rate of Rs. 140/- per square meter, for a total consideration of Rs. 60,80,480/-. Initially, on acceptance of the offer of the State Government by the petitioner Society, an amount of Rs. 28,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the State Government on 29.05.1988, as part payment of the total consideration. In lieu of the said payment, the State Government passed an order dated 04.07.1989, giving possession of land admeasuring 20,000 square meters to the petitioner. It appears that there was some litigation regarding certain portions of land. Insofar as the allotment of the remaining land to the petitioner was concerned, no steps were taken by the State Government for a considerable period of time. The petitioner, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No. 2918 of 2001 before this Court. It appears that there was some litigation regarding certain portions of land. Insofar as the allotment of the remaining land to the petitioner was concerned, no steps were taken by the State Government for a considerable period of time. The petitioner, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No. 2918 of 2001 before this Court. This Court, by an order dated 17.10.2001, had directed the petitioner to make a detailed representation and further directed the respondent State Government to consider the said representation sympathetically and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law, while taking into consideration the fact that earlier, the State Government had passed an order in favour of the petitioner on 02.05.1988. The representation came to be rejected by the State Government on 21st December, 2001. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred second petition being Special Civil Application No. 4508 of 2002, which was disposed of by this Court by passing order dated 05.12.2002, directing the petitioner society to make another representation to the State Government for the allotment of alternative land in the nearby vicinity. The State Government was directed to decide this representation within a period of one month from the date of the said order. 15. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made another representation dated 27.12.2002 for the allotment of the remaining 20,027 square meters of land. 16. It appears that the State Government was in the process of considering the said representation, as is clear from the letter dated 06.08.2003, addressed by it to the petitioner, asking the petitioner whether it was willing to pay the market price as on that day. The petitioner replied in the affirmative vide letter dated 10.08.2004, showing its willingness to pay the market price prevailing at the relevant period of time. Instead of considering the willingness of the petitioner, the State Government did a volte face and addressed a communication dated 19.08.2004 to the petitioner, stating that it is unable to allot land at the old rate. Reference was also made to the said Government Resolution dated 06.10.2001, stating that as per the Government Resolution, land is required to be auctioned. Even thereafter, on 23.11.2004, the Officer on Special Duty to the Minister, Revenue Department, wrote a letter to the Secretary, Revenue Department, to do the needful upon the representation made by the petitioner. Reference was also made to the said Government Resolution dated 06.10.2001, stating that as per the Government Resolution, land is required to be auctioned. Even thereafter, on 23.11.2004, the Officer on Special Duty to the Minister, Revenue Department, wrote a letter to the Secretary, Revenue Department, to do the needful upon the representation made by the petitioner. As no steps were taken by the State Government, the petitioner was forced to file a third petition, being Special Civil Application No. 4087 of 2016 which was disposed of by this Court by directing the respondents to look into the application dated 10.08.2016 as expeditiously as possible. 17. The above chronology of events makes it amply clear that the petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post for the compliance of the order dated 02.05.1988 of the State Government which is not being honoured by the State Government itself in toto, on one pretext or the other. The petitioner was not only willing to pay the market price prevailing in the year 2003 but is also willing to pay the market price prevailing as on today. It is clear from the sequence of events narrated hereinabove that the petitioner does not lack readiness to pay the market price. It is the State Government that is not issuing orders for the allotment of the remaining land for one reason or the other in spite of several rounds of litigations. The petitioner is now burdened with the payment of the price at the market rate prevailing as on today, for no fault of its own. However, it is still ready to pay the said price as it is in requirement of the land that has been allotted to it as far back as on 02.05.1988. 18. It appears that the reasons given in the communication dated 19.08.2004, regarding the Government Resolution dated 06.10.2001, are not at all relevant as the State Government, itself, has written a letter dated 06.08.2003, to the petitioner asking its willingness to pay the market price prevailing as on that date. The submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader that this communication has not been challenged by the petitioner does not appear to be correct as, aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner had filed the third petition, being Special Civil Application No. 4087 of 2016, which was disposed of by order dated 10.08.2016. 19. The submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader that this communication has not been challenged by the petitioner does not appear to be correct as, aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner had filed the third petition, being Special Civil Application No. 4087 of 2016, which was disposed of by order dated 10.08.2016. 19. In spite of the previous three orders of this Court, the State Government has not taken any steps to allot the remaining land to the petitioner. 20. What is significant is the fact that the order dated 02.05.1988, passed by the State Government is still intact, as it has neither been modified, revoked nor withdrawn. The State Government, therefore, is obliged and bound to give effect to its own order and there can be no justification for not doing so, more so when the petitioner has shown its willingness to pay the market price prevailing today, for the remaining portion of land. This aspect has been confirmed by the Court from the learned counsel for the petitioner. 21. By the order dated 18.02.2011 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 12865 of 2010, this Court had disposed of the petition in the following terms: "5. In view of the above and the subsequent communication dated 17.02.2011, the present petition is disposed of at this stage. Let the petitioners respond to the communication dated 17.02.2011 and give their option/choice and thereafter necessary formalities be completed by the Mamlatdar/appropriate authority in accordance with law considering the earlier order inclusive of completing the process of valuation etc. and thereafter the State Government/appropriate authority to allot the said land and pass an appropriate order to allot the land of similar value to the petitioner. However, the aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of communication from the petitioners." Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought similar directions in this case as well. 22. For the above reasons and looking to the totality of the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court considers it just and proper to pass the following order: (i) The respondent-State Government is directed to complete the formalities of allotting the remaining portion of land admeasuring 20,027 square meters to the petitioner as per the order dated 02.05.1988, for which the petitioner is ready and willing to pay market price prevailing as on today. (ii) The concerned authorities shall earmark the land to be allotted to the petitioner and determine its price at the market rate prevailing as on today and convey the said price to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) The petitioner shall thereafter pay the amount so determined within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of communication from the State Government. (iv) Upon receipt of the payment, the State Government shall hand over the possession of remaining piece of land admeasuring 20,027 square meters to the petitioner. 23. The petition is allowed, in the above terms. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. 24. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court in case of difficulty. Petition Partly Allowed.