Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 523 (GUJ)

Markhi Devshi Kandoriya v. State of Gujarat

2017-03-07

K.M.THAKER

body2017
JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Ms. Pahwa, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mehta, learned AGP for the respondents. 2. So as to consider and appreciate the relief prayed for by the petitioner, it is necessary to take into account factual backdrop which can be summarized thus. 2.1 The dispute and controversy in present petition relate to land bearing Survey No. 217 admeasuring 22 acres and 22 guthas in Village: Bhogat, Taluka: Jamkalyanpur, District: Jamnagar. 2.2 According to the petitioner's claim, his father purchased the said land in June 1968 by a registered sale deed. The petitioner claims that the entry recording the said transaction came to be mutated as Revenue Entry No. 1098 in favour of the petitioner's father and that the said entry was subsequently certified in March 1970. 2.3 Subsequently, somewhere in 1970-71, the Deputy Collector, Khambaliya initiated proceedings for breach of condition on the ground that the new and restricted tenure land could not have been sold without permission of the Collector. After issuing notice and after hearing, the concerned/affected party, the Deputy Collector passed order dated 23.6.1973 holding, inter alia, that the transaction was effected in breach of condition and without taking permission of Collector. The Deputy Collector passed consequential order setting aside the sale and forfeiture of land. 2.4 Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 23.6.1973, the petitioner's father filed appeal before the Collector, Jamnagar. The appeal was registered as Land-Appeal-6/73-74. After hearing the parties, the Collector passed order dated 30.7.1974 and set aside the order dated 23.6.1973 passed by the Deputy Collector. 2.5 In its order dated 30.7.1974, the Collector held that the land in question was allotted/granted to the vendor Shri Pragdas Purshottam Bava as 'avadiya' on new and restricted tenure basis and that, therefore, the entry could not have been certified, however, since the entry was already mutated, the authority held that instead of removing the purchaser and taking over the possession and forfeiture of land, the purchaser may be permitted to hold and retain possession by charging penalty amount and thereby the possession and occupation of land may be regularized. The Collector also passed further direction to the competent authority to decide the penal amount and the father of the petitioner was directed to pay penal amount. The Collector also passed further direction to the competent authority to decide the penal amount and the father of the petitioner was directed to pay penal amount. 2.6 It appears that subsequently, father of the petitioner declared his inability to pay the penal amount and that, therefore the Collector passed order dated 16.6.2016 recording that the petitioner declared and stated that he was not ready or able to pay the penal amount and that, therefore, the request for regularization of possession and occupation of land cannot be accepted. With such observation, the Collector also directed the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the land in question and that the land would vest in favour of the Government. 2.7 After the said order dated 16.6.1976, father of present petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 102 of 1977 which came to be decided vide judgment dated 3.10.1981. The learned Civil Court directed the authorities to regularize the possession by imposing appropriate penalty. The State filed appeal against the said judgment dated 3.10.1981 which was registered as Appeal No. 198 of 1981. The said appeal came to be decided vide judgment dated 28.4.1982 and the learned appeal Court passed similar directions. 2.8 Thereafter vide communication dated 15.7.1982, the Collector informed the petitioner's father to remain present during the hearing for determining the price/penalty. 2.9 On or around 21.7.1982, the petitioner's father submitted an application with a request to regularize the possession. 2.10 Subsequently, the Collector passed order dated 30.5.1983 directing that if the father of the petitioner does not pay or is not ready and willing to pay the amount of penalty determined by the authority, then steps to take possession of the land in question should be initiated. 2.11 At that stage, the petitioner's father preferred revision application before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department against the order dated 30.5.1983 passed by the Collector. 2.12 The said revision application came to be decided by the Secretary (Appeals) vide order dated 23.7.1984. 2.13 The Secretary (Appeals) took into account the facts of the case and also considered the Government Resolution dated 8.1.1980 and having regard to the facts and the resolution, the Secretary (Appeals) held that the possession of the land can be regularized upon payment of 2.5 times penalty. 2.13 The Secretary (Appeals) took into account the facts of the case and also considered the Government Resolution dated 8.1.1980 and having regard to the facts and the resolution, the Secretary (Appeals) held that the possession of the land can be regularized upon payment of 2.5 times penalty. 2.14 The petitioner did not pay the amount of penalty and when the authority initiated steps to take possession somewhere in February 1998, the petitioner, at that stage, preferred present petition. 2.15 This Court, vide order dated 5.8.1998, admitted the petition and granted ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph No. 15(B) on the conditions mentioned in the order. The said order dated 5.8.1998 reads thus: "Rule. Ad-interim relief in terms of para 15(B) on condition that the petitioner pays the amount of premium plus penalty which may be determined by the Collector. It will be open to the petitioner to make an application for determination of the aforesaid amounts and the respondents shall, without prejudice to their rights and contentious in this petition, determine the said amounts within two months from today and the petitioner shall pay the amounts so determined within two months thereafter." (Emphasis supplied) 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has neither complied the order passed by the competent authority for determining the penalty nor the petitioner has complied this interim order dated 5.8.1998 passed by this Court while admitting the petition. 3.1 On the other hand, without complying the order passed by the authority and/or the order dated 5.8.1990 passed by the Court, the petitioner has, allegedly, continued to hold possession of the land in question. 3.2 Of course, the respondent authorities claim that the authority has taken over the possession of the land in question. 3.3 So far as controversy with regard to the possession of the land in question is concerned, the authority, i.e. respondent No. 4 has filed affidavit, wherein it is stated, inter alia, that: "5. It is stated that as per the order of the Hon. Court dated 05/08/1998, the price of the land in question was decided by the competent authority and then by the letter of the Collector Jamnagar dated 28/12/1998, No. jaman-1-3714-98, Mamlatdar Kalyanpur was informed that the price of the land had been decided as Rs. 40000/- per acre. So land in question measuring acre 22.26 guntha priced at Rs. 40000/- per acre. So land in question measuring acre 22.26 guntha priced at Rs. 906000/- and with a penalty of 2.5 times it priced at Rs. 2265000/-. 6. It is pertinent to note that by way of the letter dated 06/01/1999 No. jman-17-99, the office of the deponent conveyed petitioner to pay the above mentioned amount of premium and penalty within two months as the Hon. Court's order dated 05/08/1998. 7. Talati Bhogat had given a report to the Mamlatdar dated/02/1999 with a panchrojkam that the petitioner was not willing and can't afford the payment as decided and informed to pay. 8. It is pertinent to note that thereafter the possession of the land was taken and showing the possession of state government, a board was put on the land in question, photographs of which are attached herewith. A panchrojkam has been done by circle officer on date-11/07/2012 which mentioned that land was barren and not cultivated. Another panchrojkam was done on the date-11/10/2012. 9. It is submitted that by way of the mutation entry No. 2334 in village form No. 6, the land was mutated in the name of the state government. 10. It is stated that as it is earlier mentioned that as per the order of Hon. Court dated 05/08/1998 ad-interim relief was granted conditionally. The land in question after completing two months from the date of order as the petitioner had not pay the amount decided by the competent authority in the year 1998, the land automatically forfeited in the name of the state government. Only on this ground the petition should be dismissed. Therefore question of regularization does not arise as of now." 3.4 Of course, the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit and further affidavit claiming that the land in question is still with the petitioner. 4. Mrs. Pahwa, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the actions by the respondents are unjustified and without authority in law because the father of present petitioner purchased the land from Shri Pragdas Purshottam by registered sale deed and the entry recording the said transaction has been mutated as well as certified as back as in 1970 at Entry No. 1098 and that, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner are unjustified and unauthorized. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that even if the petitioner's contention that the actions and orders passed by the respondent authorities are unjustified and without authority in law, is not accepted, then the submission of the petitioner that he is ready and willing to pay penalty determined by the authority should be considered. Learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance on the provisions under Section 61 and Section 73B to support her submission that the actions are unjustified and unauthorized. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the decisions in case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim [1996 (0) GLHEL-SC 17750], in the case of Rajeshbhai Vithalbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat [SCA No. 10171/2008] and in case of Ghanchi Bhaichandbhai Nalabhai vs. State of Gujarat [ 2014 (1) GLR 311 ]. Any other submission and contention are not raised by learned advocate for the petitioner. 4.1 Mr. Mehta, learned AGP has opposed the petition and the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner. Learned AGP submitted that the petitioner has neither complied the order passed by the competent authority for fixing the penalty and despite intimation by the authority to pay the premium, the petitioner's father never showed readiness or willingness to pay amount determined by the authority and he has also not complied the condition in the interim order. 4.2 According to learned AGP, the petitioner, actually, expressly declared that he is not able and ready to pay the amount determined by the authority. According to learned AGP, the said statement/declaration by the petitioner's father is recorded by the authority. According to learned AGP, when the petitioner has never been ready and willing to pay the amount and for almost more than 20 years, he has not paid the amount, the demand for regularization of possession is unjustified and does not deserve to be entertained. Learned AGP further submitted that even otherwise, since the petitioner did not comply the condition, the possession of the land has already reverted to and vested with the Government. He further submitted that after the order passed by the Collector, the land vests in the Government and the said vesting has attained finality since the petitioner has not made the payment of penalty determined by the authority. He further submitted that after the order passed by the Collector, the land vests in the Government and the said vesting has attained finality since the petitioner has not made the payment of penalty determined by the authority. He submitted that the learned Civil Court and the learned appeal Court have also held that for regularization of the possession, the petitioner is obliged to pay amount of penalty as may be determined by the authority and that, therefore, the petitioner's demand does not deserve to be entertained. Learned AGP relied on the details mentioned in the reply affidavit that the authority has already taken over possession and even if the petitioner's claim that he is in possession of the land is assumed to be correct, then also the possession is in form of and by way of encroachment or as a trespasser and it is neither legal nor valid possession in eyes of law. 5. I have considered the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondents. I have also considered the interim order by this Court and by Civil Court and other material on record and various orders passed by the authorities at different stages. 6. Before proceeding further, it is relevant and pertinent to note and keep in focus the relief prayed for by the petitioner in present petition. I have also considered the interim order by this Court and by Civil Court and other material on record and various orders passed by the authorities at different stages. 6. Before proceeding further, it is relevant and pertinent to note and keep in focus the relief prayed for by the petitioner in present petition. The petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that: "15(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate, writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned action of the respondent authorities in seeking to take possession of the subject land covered by survey No. 217 situate at village Bhoga, Tal: Jamkalyanpur, Dist: Jamnagar as being illegal, arbitrary, without application of mind, competence, jurisdiction and violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to restrain the respondents, their agents and servants from taking possession of the subject land owned and possessed by the petitioner covered by survey No. 217 situate at village Bhoga, Tal: Jamkalyanpur, Dist: Jamnagar, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;" 6.1 From the relief prayed for in the petition, it becomes clear that any order passed by any authority at any stage is not challenged in present petition by the petitioner and the directions passed by the authority, more particularly the orders holding that the petitioner is liable and obliged to pay penalty and on payment of penalty, the possession can be regularized, have attained finality. 6.2 In absence of any challenge against the orders passed by the Collector and/or the Secretary (Appeals), the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he should not be made to pay penalty and/or that the penalty determined by the competent authority is unjustified or unreasonable. 6.3 It is pertinent that neither the decision holding that the petitioner should pay 2.5 times penalty amount nor the quantification of penalty is under challenge in the petition. 6.4 The said decision as well as the quantification have attained finality when the Collector passed order dated 30.7.1994 or at least when the Secretary (Appeals) passed order dated 23.7.1984. 6.5 After the Secretary (Appeals) passed the order in 1984 until 1998, the petitioner did not take any steps against the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) and/or the previous order dated 30.7.1974 passed by the Collector until 1998. 6.5 After the Secretary (Appeals) passed the order in 1984 until 1998, the petitioner did not take any steps against the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) and/or the previous order dated 30.7.1974 passed by the Collector until 1998. 6.6 Only when the authorities initiated steps to take vacant possession of the land in question, the petitioner filed present petition in 1998. 6.7 It is pertinent that even in the petition the petitioner has neither challenged the order holding that the petitioner should pay penalty and/or he has also not challenged the order determining the penalty (2.5 times) and that, therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he should not be required to pay penalty as the contentions or grievance do not survive in light of above mentioned facts and such grievance cannot be entertained. 7. Even otherwise, the petitioner accepted and enjoyed and availed/reaped benefit out of the conditional interim relief dated 5.8.1998. 7.1 Not only that according to the petitioner's case, he has continued to hold possession of the land in question in view of and by virtue of the interim order dated 5.8.1998. Differently put, the petitioner has derived benefit of the order dated 5.8.1998. 7.2 The said order directed and obliged the petitioner to pay the amount which may be determined by the authority. 7.3 It was after the direction in August 1998 that the authority determined the amount of penalty and instructed the petitioner to pay the said amount. 7.4 For almost 18 years, the petitioner did not pay and has not paid the said amount. In the interregnum, the petitioner was called upon by the authorities to pay penalty amount, however, he did not pay the amount. 7.5 Further, as mentioned above, the orders quantifying the penalty have not been challenged and they have attained finality. Even in this petition the order quantifying the penalty have not been challenged. 7.6 In this view of the matter, any objection or any grievance with regard to the orders passed by the authorities in 1974 and 1984 cannot be entertained. 8. It is pertinent to note that it was the petitioner who, of his own choice, filed civil suit and learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the orders passed by the learned Civil Court and the learned appeal Court in civil proceedings. 8. It is pertinent to note that it was the petitioner who, of his own choice, filed civil suit and learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the orders passed by the learned Civil Court and the learned appeal Court in civil proceedings. 8.1 When the said orders are taken into consideration, then it emerges that even the learned Civil Court and the learned appeal Court, by their respective judgments, also held that the possession can be regularized but on payment of the penalty determined by the competent authority. 8.2 Thus, while the Civil Court and the appeal Court by the said orders held, declared and directed that the possession should be regularized but the very same orders also held, declared and directed that the possession can be and would be regularized on payment of penalty amount. 8.3 The said orders and directions have not been challenged by the petitioner in this petition or any other proceedings. Therefore, the said conclusions, declarations and directions by the authority as well as the Court have attained finality and are binding to the petitioner and any objection or grievance against the said order cannot be considered after 19 years and that too when the petitioner has not even raised any challenge against the said orders or directions and any relief against the said orders or directions is not prayed for even in the petition. 9. Now, so far as the issue related to possession of the land in question is concerned, the versions of the petitioner and the competent authority are diagonally opposite and in conflict with each other. 9.1 The possession taken over by the authority by drawing panchnama is held to be legal and justified procedure. Once the State/competent authority takes over possession by drawing panchnama, even if the concerned person enters the property, more particularly immovable open land, like land in question, the entry or possession/occupation by the concerned person after the date of the panchnama would be unauthorized. It would be as good as trespass or encroachment and the said possession would not have any legal sanction. 9.2 In present case, the competent authority has claimed that the petitioner was required to be paid by way of penalty, i.e. Rs. It would be as good as trespass or encroachment and the said possession would not have any legal sanction. 9.2 In present case, the competent authority has claimed that the petitioner was required to be paid by way of penalty, i.e. Rs. 22,65,000/- and he was also instructed, by order as well as personally, to pay penalty amount, however, the petitioner not only did not pay the amount but he even stated and declared that he is not able to pay the penalty amount and therefore, the authority took over the possession of the land by drawing panchnama on 28.12.1998. 9.3 In this context, learned AGP has relied on the documents dated 28.12.1988, 6.1.1999, 15.12.1999 and 11.7.2012 at pages 37 to 41 (i.e. Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4). 9.4 On the other hand, learned advocate for the petitioner disputed the panchnama, notice put up at the site in question by the competent authority and she contended that the possession has never been taken over by the competent authority. 9.5 On this count, it is relevant to note that even if the petitioner's allegation and claim that the petitioner is still in possession and occupation of land in question, is assumed to be correct, then also either the petitioner is in unauthorized and illegal possession of the land in question as trespasser or encroacher or if the respondents' claim that the possession is taken over by the authority, is not accepted, then also the petitioner's possession, after the Collector's order of July 1974 and the Secretary's order of July 1984, cannot be considered to be legal or justified. 9.6 It is pertinent that the petitioner has not only disregarded and has not complied the order by the Civil Court and the appeal Court but he has disobeyed the condition prescribed by this Court in the interim order. 9.7 It is pertinent that the Court granted interim relief on the condition to pay the amount which the authority would determine. The interim relief would operate subject to the compliance of the condition but the petitioner did not and has not complied the condition. 9.8 Therefore, in light of said breach of the condition the claim and allegation about possession cannot be entertained and even if it is assumed that he has the possession, it has to be treated as illegal and unauthorized. 9.8 Therefore, in light of said breach of the condition the claim and allegation about possession cannot be entertained and even if it is assumed that he has the possession, it has to be treated as illegal and unauthorized. 9.9 In view of the fact that during past more than 20 years, the petitioner has not complied the direction and has not paid single rupee and that, therefore, he has no right, title and he is not in legal possession of the land in question. 9.10 It is also relevant to mention and pertinent to note that on all previous occasions when the petitioner's father/petitioner was granted opportunity and/or when he was asked (by virtue of orders passed by the concerned authority) to pay the price/premium, the petitioner's father/petitioner declined to pay the amount under the guise of disability to pay the amount, he never paid the amount determined by the authority. Having declared that he is not ready and willing to pay the amount, the dispute or grievance by the petitioner does not deserve to be entertained. Not only this, as mentioned earlier, the petitioner continued to enjoy and derive benefit of the interim order passed by this Court, that too without complying the condition prescribed by the Court for granting interim relief. The cumulative effect of all the orders passed by the authorities, Civil Court and this Court along with the conduct of the petitioner establishes that the petitioner has consciously and willingly disregarded, ignored and disobeyed the orders passed by the authorities, the Civil Court and this Court. Learned AGP is also right and justified in his contention that the land now vests in the Government and the said vesting has never been challenged by the petitioner and that, therefore also the grievance of the petitioner now does not deserve to be entertained. 9.11 Either way and considering from either perspective, the petitioner's possession, if all he actually holds the possession, is unjustified and unauthorized in view of the fact that the petitioner has not paid the penalty amount despite the orders by the statutory authority as well as orders by the learned Civil Court and even after the order dated 5.8.1998 passed by this Court. 10. At this stage, it is relevant to take into account the details recorded in Village Form No. 6 (Hakk Patrak). 10. At this stage, it is relevant to take into account the details recorded in Village Form No. 6 (Hakk Patrak). The document is placed on record of present petition at Annexure-R5, page 43. 10.1 In the said Village Form No. 6 (Hakk Patrak), Entry No. 2334 is mutated on 20.4.1998. 10.2 In the said Village Form No. 6, it is recorded, 20.4.1998, that the petitioner did not agree to pay penalty amount and that, therefore, his request for regularization is rejected and that directions to remove the trespass/encroachment are issued and that after the entry dated 20.4.1998, the land in question came to be forfeited in favour of the Government and came to be vested in the Government. 10.3 On this count, what is important is the fact that at any stage before any authority and more particularly even in present petition the petitioner has never challenged the said entry dated 20.4.1998. 10.4 Any relief against the said Entry No. 2334 dated 20.4.1998 is not prayed for in present petition. 10.5 It is not the case even of the petitioner that against the said entry, the petitioner had taken out any other proceedings and/or that the said entry is set aside by the other competent statutory authority. 10.6 Thus, the said Entry No. 2334 dated 20.4.1998 (certified on 3.6.1998) has attained finality. 10.7 In this view of the matter, the petitioner's contention that he is in possession of the land in question, does not deserve to be entertained and the petitioner cannot be considered in legal and rightful possession of the land in question. 11. In this background, the question which arises is about the relief prayed for by the petitioner in present petition. 11.1 The petitioner has approached the Court with prayer that the respondents may be restrained from taking over the possession of the land in question. 11.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay penalty amount. Since the decision of the competent authority for holding that the petitioner is liable to pay 2.5 times penalty amount, is not challenged by the petitioner in present petition and almost 20 years have passed since the said decision by the authority, there is no ground to interfere with or to disturb the said decision. Since the decision of the competent authority for holding that the petitioner is liable to pay 2.5 times penalty amount, is not challenged by the petitioner in present petition and almost 20 years have passed since the said decision by the authority, there is no ground to interfere with or to disturb the said decision. 11.3 Of course, during hearing of the petition, learned advocate for the petitioner attempted to raise contention that the policy decision as reflected from the resolution dated 8.1.1980 [on which the Secretary (Appeals) placed reliance) while deciding that the penalty amount should be 2.5 times, would be applicable in case of the petitioner, however, foregoing discussion has brought out that after above mentioned orders and after all these years, it is not open or permissible for the petitioner to raise any objection against the said decision as regards the rate of penalty, more particularly because the said decision is not challenged by the petitioner for almost 19 years and even in present petition the said decision is not challenged and therefore, the authority's decision with regard to the rate of penalty does not deserve to be and cannot be interfered with and disturbed. 11.4 Likewise, the findings and conclusions by the authority that the land in question was of new tenure and that, therefore, it could not have been sold without permission from the Collector and since the land in question was sold without Collector's permission, the sale was vitiated on account of violation of Section 63, also cannot be disturbed and interfered with, more particularly because any challenge against the said findings is not raised in the petition and any relief against the said findings is not prayed for in the petition. The resultant effect would be that the transfer of land in favour of present petitioner (or his father) cannot be termed 'legal' and by not challenging the said position and by not seeking any relief, even in nature of declaration against the said position, this Court can neither entertain any submission or grievance against the said position nor can record any finding or conclusion or grant any relief against the said decision, in present petition. 12. 12. In this legal and factual background, any direction setting aside the action of respondents and/or any order restraining the respondents from taking over possession of the land in question cannot be passed, more particularly because the orders passed by the authority and the conclusions recorded by the authority as back as in 1974, then 1984 and subsequently by virtue of entry dated 24.2.1998 are not subject matter of petition and they have attained finality and even otherwise any relief against the said findings, conclusions and orders are not prayed for in the petition. 13. Further, the conduct of the petitioner, which is evident from foregoing discussion, also disentitles the petitioner from any indulgence by the Court. Before closing, it also deserves to be clarified that having regard to the scope of present petition which is extremely restricted and limited in light of and on account of limited relief prayed for by the petitioner and limited or restricted challenge in the petition, it is neither possible nor permissible for the Court to examine, even entertain, any grievance or contention against the conclusion and order by the competent authority holding, inter alia, that the transaction in question (executed by petitioner's father) was in violation of statutory restriction because permission of Collector was not obtained. For the same reason, it is also not possible or permissible for the Court to adjudicate, or even entertain, any grievance or challenge against the decision by the competent authority that for regularization of possession of land in question, the petitioner should pay penalty and/or against the determination of the rate of penalty. The said decisions are not under challenge in the petition and any relief/s against the said decision are not prayed for. On the contrary, the petitioner has accepted the Secretary's order for 19 years and when the petitioner filed present petition, this Court also directed that the petitioner should pay the amount as may be determined by the competent authority. None of the said orders or directions are under challenge in this petition and any relief/s against the said directions have not been prayed for. It is in that sense that this Court has to observe that the scope of this petition is extremely limited. None of the said orders or directions are under challenge in this petition and any relief/s against the said directions have not been prayed for. It is in that sense that this Court has to observe that the scope of this petition is extremely limited. Above mentioned orders or conclusions or determination cannot be interfered with by this Court in present petition, in light of the limited relief which is prayed for by the petitioner. Otherwise, it would amount to transgressing the scope of the petition or adjudicating the dispute which is not raised or entertaining the relief which is prayed for. 14. At the same time, it would be too harsh and to some extent unreasonable or unjustified to overlook and ignore the fact that for many years the land in question remained in possession of the petitioner. The claim of the authority that the possession is taken over, is disputed by the petitioner however in view of the nature and scope of the petition, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into the said controversy. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner held the land and occupied for many years and was cultivating the land for agriculture purpose and also having regard to the fact that according to the submission by learned advocate for the petitioner, the land in question is the source of livelihood of the petitioner and his family, this Court cannot help itself but to observe that if the petitioner approaches the authority with a request or representation to allow him to retain possession with declaration that he will pay price and penalty which the competent authority may determine, then the authority will consider such request - representation and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and applicable rules and policy as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two weeks from the receipt of this judgment. In the result, the petition fails. Rule is discharged. No costs. Petition Dismissed