JUDGMENT & ORDER : R. Subhash Reddy, J. 1. As the reliefs sought in these petitions are similar, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Special Civil Application No. 9503 of 2007 is filed with the reliefs, which read as under: "(a) Writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ in the nature of mandamus be issued against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 directing them forthwith the constructed portion on the land bearing revenue survey nos. 754/15, 754/16 and 755/1 of village Makarba situated on the Northern side of the respondent no.3 club and on the back side of Alok Timbers be taken possession of and sealed the constructed portion and whatever the construction existing be forthwith demolished and the respondent no.3-club be also restrained by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to enter upon the land so as to avoid the possibility of any further construction thereon. (b) By appropriate writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ in the nature of mandamus, the State of Gujarat, the respondent no.4 herein be directed to take the possession of the land of revenue survey nos. 754/15, 754/16 and 755/1 of village Makarba situated on the Northern side of the respondent no.3 club and on the back side of Alok Timbers which belongs to the State of Gujarat and other survey numbers which also belong to State of Gujarat. (c) Pending the final hearing and disposal of this petition, the respondent no.3 be restrained from putting up any other construction on the said land bearing revenue survey nos. 754/15, 754/16 and 755/1 of village Makarba situated on the Northern side of the respondent no.3 club and on the back side of Alok Timbers as well as the respondent nos. 1 and 2 be directed to place the security on the land so as not to use the land which belongs to the State as well as not to put up any construction thereon. (d) Pending the final hearing and disposal of this petition, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 be forthwith directed to demolish the illegal construction put up on the land and the State Government be forthwith directed to take over the possession therefore after the illegal construction is demolished or along with the construction. (e) Rs.50,000/- cost of this petition be awarded against the respondent no.3-club. 1 and 2 be forthwith directed to demolish the illegal construction put up on the land and the State Government be forthwith directed to take over the possession therefore after the illegal construction is demolished or along with the construction. (e) Rs.50,000/- cost of this petition be awarded against the respondent no.3-club. (f) Pass such other and further orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require in the interest of justice." 3. Writ Petition in PIL No. 158 of 2012 is filed with the reliefs, which read as under: "(A) Writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ in the nature of mandamus be issued against the Respondent Numbers 1 & 2 directing the to demolish the unauthorized construction "The Golden Glory Hall" on the government land by respondent no.3. (B) By appropriate writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ in the nature of mandamus, the State of Gujarat, the respondent no.4 herein be directed to take the possession of Encroached Land which belongs to the State of Gujarat. (C) Respondent No.3 be directed to give the details of money earned from the construction made on the Encroached Land and be further directed to deposit all money which is earned from the construction made on the Encroached Land with interest. (D) Pending the final hearing and disposal of this petition Respondent No.3 be directed not to use the constructed area on the Encroached Land and/or the income received from the said construction may be deposited in the state exchequer. (E) Rs.50,000/- cost of this petition be awarded against the respondent No.3 club. (F) Pass such other and further orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require in the interest of justice." 4. Special Civil Application No. 8294 of 2007 is filed with the prayers, which read as under: "A admit and allow this petition; B. issue writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent nos. 4 to 6 to take action against the respondent nos. 1 to 3 as the land of Government survey numbers is encroached by way of illegal construction by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and direct the respondent nos. 4 to 6 to take against under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act; and further be pleased to direct the respondent nos. 1 to 3 as the land of Government survey numbers is encroached by way of illegal construction by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and direct the respondent nos. 4 to 6 to take against under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act; and further be pleased to direct the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to demolish the said construction on the Government land forthwith; further the respondent no.7 may be directed to take action under the provisions of Companies Act to remove the respondent nos. 1 to 3 from the respondent-Company for misusing their position as Manager, President and Director of the respondent-Company; C. pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the respondent nos. 1 to 3 from carrying out further construction on the land in question and further be pleased to demolish the said construction which is made on the Government land, as the respondent nos. 1 to 3 are flouting the notices and not obeying the instructions issued by the local authorities and continuing the construction on the site; D. pass such other orders that may be just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner." 5. For the purpose of disposal, we draw facts as stated in WP (PIL) No. 158 of 2012. The said petition is filed by way of Public Interest Litigation seeking the reliefs as referred above. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that, the 3rd respondent-Club has encroached upon the government land and made illegal constructions. It is alleged that, such illegal construction is in violation of statutory provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and various government resolutions. It is stated in the petition that, by making illegal construction, though the 3rd respondent-Club is earning huge profits, the respondents are not taking any action for demolishing such unauthorized construction, which is named as Golden Glory Hall, made in the government land by the 3 rd respondent-Club. 7. Affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent-Club. It is stated in the petition that, by making illegal construction, though the 3rd respondent-Club is earning huge profits, the respondents are not taking any action for demolishing such unauthorized construction, which is named as Golden Glory Hall, made in the government land by the 3 rd respondent-Club. 7. Affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent-Club. While denying various allegations made by the petitioner in the WP (PIL) No. 158 of 2012, it is stated that, the 3rd respondent-Club is a recreation club registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, with the objects to maintain the Club House with all suitable accommodation and conveniences to encourage and permit all sports facilities like Cricket, Billiards, Table Tennis and other games. There are more than 10000 members availing the services of the Club and the said Club is one of the leading Clubs in the city of Ahmedabad. It owns and occupies the lands bearing survey nos. 744/3, 745, 746/1, 746/2/1, 2755/1, 755/4 and 8, 755/7, 756/1 to 3, 758/3/1, 756/2 to 6 and 758/1, 2, 3/2 and 4 admeasuring 38, 600 sq.mts, situated at Makarba Taluka, City-Ahmedabad. The Club has also acquired the rights over the lands adjacent to the aforesaid survey nos. 754/15, 754/16, 757/1, 2 and 3 admeasuring 10, 013 sq.mts and made constructions thereon. The Club has also acquired rights over the lands situated adjacent to the aforesaid survey nos. 754/15, 754/16, 757/1, 2 and 3 admeasuring 10, 013 sq.mts, which are abutting the S.G. Highway. 7.1. It is further stated in the reply affidavit that, revenue proceedings were initiated in respect of the aforesaid lands for use of land for non-agricultural purpose. The lands bearing survey no. 754/15 was a new tenure land and was allotted to one Thakor Aataji Varvaji. The Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, under the provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 granted permission to convert the land of the said survey number into old tenure land on payment of premium and on condition that, in future, if non-agricultural use of the land is made, the occupier will have to pay 50% of the difference between the current market price and the premium paid. It is further averred that, the original owner Thakorji Aataji, thereafter sold the said land to one Ushaben Shashikant Thakor from whom the 3rd respondent Club has derived the interest in the land. It is further averred that, the original owner Thakorji Aataji, thereafter sold the said land to one Ushaben Shashikant Thakor from whom the 3rd respondent Club has derived the interest in the land. Similarly, the lands bearing survey nos. 754/16, 757/2 and 753/3 were also converted into old tenure land and mutation entries were also made to that effect in the revenue records. The aforesaid survey numbers were converted into old tenure land mainly on condition that, in the event of non-agricultural use of the land of the said survey numbers, the occupier will have to pay premium of 50% difference between the market price and the premium already paid. 7.2. It is pleaded in the reply affidavit that, on 8.9.1992, the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad issued a notice in respect of the land bearing survey no. 754/15 for converting the same to non-agricultural purpose by putting pucca bricks and constructing residential rooms thereon. On 20.1.1998, the City Deputy Collector passed an order vesting the land of the said survey number in the State Government under section 79A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, on the ground that, there was breach of condition for grant of old tenure. It is further stated that, there is no provision under the said Act of vesting the lands into the government for the above technical violation. It is stated that, similarly, notices were also issued to the owners of the land bearing survey nos. 754/16, 757/1+2+3 for breach of the terms and conditions of grant of old tenure land in the year 1992-93. It is averred that, the said order is contrary to the provisions of law and therefore, non est. There is no provision for vesting the land in the State Government as directed by the Deputy Collector. It is stated in the reply affidavit that, possession of the land in question could not be ordered to be taken since only use was purportedly unauthorized and can be continued for authorized use. In fact, said order has not been acted upon till date since the possession and structures are undisturbed. 7.3. It is further stated by the 3rd respondent-Club in the affidavit in reply that, the orders passed by the City Deputy Collector vesting the land were challenged by the original owners before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application Nos. In fact, said order has not been acted upon till date since the possession and structures are undisturbed. 7.3. It is further stated by the 3rd respondent-Club in the affidavit in reply that, the orders passed by the City Deputy Collector vesting the land were challenged by the original owners before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application Nos. 2011 to 2014 of 2004, which were dismissed by the Revenue Tribunal, vide order dated 25.11.2004 only on the ground of delay. 7.4. It is stated that, on 31.3.1991, the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority granted development permission to the 3rd respondent-Club. 7.5. It is further stated that, since the 3rd respondent-Club was facing acute shortage of land for parking, especially during any cultural programmes held at the premises of the Club, its members and guests had to park their vehicles on the main S.G. Highway or other internal road which was causing difficulties to the residents of the nearby locality. Therefore, some of the residents of the nearby locality had filed Writ Petition in Special Civil Application No. 5511 of 2007 before this Court, seeking direction against the authority to compel the Club to provide necessary parking facilities in the Club premises so as to avoid vehicular traffic congesting the S.G. Highway. Said petition was disposed of by this Court on filing an affidavit and undertaking by the 3rd respondent-Club. 7.6. It is stated by the 3rd respondent-Club in the reply affidavit that, the Club was under bona fide impression that in view of the grant of development permission by the AUDA to the Club on 30.1.1991 on the land bearing survey nos. 754/15 and 16, the Club could make construction on the same. In view of the same, the Club submitted its plan to the AUDA for approval of construction of building for parking and requested to regularize the construction started for providing parking facilities to its members vide its letter dated 11.1.2007. The Club accordingly constructed a building for the parking facility and the marriage hall. 7.7. It is further stated by the 3rd respondent-Club in the reply affidavit that, the petitioner Mr. Pravin R. Patel, Ex-Board Director and one Shri Dineshbhai Raval, Ex-Member had personal grudges against one Mr. Girish Dani, the Secretary of the Club, and to redress the same under the pretext of interest of the Club members, they filed Special Civil Application Nos. It is further stated by the 3rd respondent-Club in the reply affidavit that, the petitioner Mr. Pravin R. Patel, Ex-Board Director and one Shri Dineshbhai Raval, Ex-Member had personal grudges against one Mr. Girish Dani, the Secretary of the Club, and to redress the same under the pretext of interest of the Club members, they filed Special Civil Application Nos. 9503 of 2007 and 8294 of 2007 respectively before this Court, seeking direction against the respondents therein to take possession of the land bearing survey nos. 754/15, 16 and 757/1, 2 and 3 as the same are vested in the State Government and to restrain the 3rd respondent-Club from making construction on the said lands. 7.8. It is further stated in the reply affidavit that, on 21.6.2007, the 3rd respondent-Club submitted an application for grant of the land of the aforesaid survey numbers, on lease or for regularization to the State Government. The State Government filed affidavit in the said two petitions to the effect that, it has decided to regularize the possession on payment of 2.1/2 times the price of the prevailing market value plus N.A. Assessment charges as per the prevailing policy of the Revenue Department vide Government Resolution dated 8.8.1980. It was also stated in the affidavit that, in the other proceeding in Letters Patent Appeal No. 449 of 2005 pending before this Court, this Court had taken a suo motu cognizance of the fact that the lands, which are meant for public purpose, shall not be regularized and thus, restrained the public bodies/authorities from regularizing the possession and observed that the Club should seek necessary order/clarification from this Court in the said pending Letters Patent Appeal. 7.9. It is further stated that, the 3rd respondent-Club thereafter filed Civil Application Nos. 13810 of 2007 and 13811 of 2007 in the pending petitions, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8294 of 2007 and Special Civil Application No. 9503 of 2007, seeking permission of this Court to use the building for parking facility and marriage hall, which was already constructed. 7.9. It is further stated that, the 3rd respondent-Club thereafter filed Civil Application Nos. 13810 of 2007 and 13811 of 2007 in the pending petitions, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8294 of 2007 and Special Civil Application No. 9503 of 2007, seeking permission of this Court to use the building for parking facility and marriage hall, which was already constructed. It is further stated that, in view of the aforesaid affidavit filed by the State Government and after the parties agreed for the arrangement as stated in the impugned order dated 25.10.2007, which is recorded in paragraph no.12 of the said order, this Court, vide order dated 25.10.2007 disposed of the said Civil Applications, directing the Club to deposit Rs.10.00 Crores to show its bona fides, payable in ten monthly installments of Rs.1.00 Crore each with the Registry of this Court. This Court further granted permission to the Club to use the parking facilities and the marriage hall. This Court further directed that, the State Government shall take appropriate decision with regard to regularization of the lands in question and place the same on the record. 8. Further, additional affidavits are also filed. Initially, in this batch of cases, there were directions issued directing the Club not to use the constructed portion without seeking permission of the Court. In view of such directions, subsequently, the 3rd respondent-Club has filed Civil Application Nos. 13810 of 2007 and 13811 of 2007 in Special Civil Application Nos. 8294 of 2007 and 9503 of 2007. When the said Special Civil Applications came up for hearing on 25.10.2007, it was submitted by the State Government that, the respondents have taken decision on the representation filed by the Club seeking regularization of the possession on payment of 2.5 times of the prevailing market value of the land in question plus N.A. assessment charge, from the date of the encroachment till the date of regularization as per the policy of the government. When the 3rd respondent-Club had agreed to pay the amount of Rs.10.00 Crores on 25.10.2007, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the order on 25.10.2007, which reads as under: "The applicant Karnavati Club Limited has filed these two applications in two different Special Civil Applications seeking permission of this Court to temporarily use the already constructed multi storied parking facility in the Club premises for providing parking to the members and the visitors during the festival seasons of Navratri and Diwali i.e. up to 20.11.2007. 2. Earlier, the applicant had filed Civil Applications No. 12757 & 12758 of 2007 seeking same prayers. The said two Civil Applications were permitted to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 12.10.2007 reserving liberty to the applicant to take fresh appropriate steps, including filing of appropriate applications with better particulars and with appropriate prayers. Accordingly, present Civil Applications are filed annexing therewith the photographs of construction already made and making necessary averments with regard to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the State Government in Special Civil Application No. 8294 of 2007 wherein it is stated that the State Government has taken a decision to regularize the encroachment upon payment of 2.5 times price of prevailing market value of the land in question + NA assessment charge from the date of the encroachment till the date of regularization as per the prevalent policy of the revenue department indicated in the Government Resolution dated 08.01.1980. 3. Heard Mr. Sudhir I. Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Mausam Yagnik and Mr. Ashish H. Shah for the applicant Club, Mr. R. C. Jani, learned advocate appearing for the original petitioner and Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing with Ms. Sangeeta Vishan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State Government. 4. 3. Heard Mr. Sudhir I. Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Mausam Yagnik and Mr. Ashish H. Shah for the applicant Club, Mr. R. C. Jani, learned advocate appearing for the original petitioner and Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing with Ms. Sangeeta Vishan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State Government. 4. Though the prayer is made in the Civil Applications to grant permission for use of the constructed portion for parking purposes during festival, in view of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the State Government indicating to make regularization of the possession of the land in question by Karnavati Club Limited subject to certain conditions and in view of Karnavati Club Limited having agreed to deposit Rs.10 Crores with the Registry of this Court and in view of the parties having requested this Court to pass an appropriate order in a larger perspective, the Court considered submissions of the parties under the above changed circumstances. 5. The original petitioners had filed the petitions inter alia praying for a direction to the State Authorities as well as Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority to initiate action against the applicant Club for making encroachment on the Government land and further prayed that the applicant Club be restrained from putting up any other construction on the land bearing Survey Nos.754/15, 754/16. 6. This Court vide order dated 09.05.2007 passed in the main petitions granted ad-interim relief restraining the Karnavati Club Limited from putting up any further construction and/or making any use of the construction already made without permission, on the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 754/15, 754/16 and 755/1 of village Makarba situated on the northern side of the Club, till the next date of hearing. The said ad-interim relief continued from time to time, during the pendency of the main petitions. In the course of the hearing, it has come up on record that in all five survey numbers belonging to the respondent Club being Survey Nos. 754/15, 754/16, 757/1, 757/2, 757/3 have vested in the State Government. 7. The applicant Club had applied in the prescribed form to the Collector for grant of the following lands on lease or sale basis. Survey No. Admeasuring Sq. Mts. 754/15 1720 754/16 2119 757/2 2529 757/2 2125 757/3 2833 Total 11326 Sq. Mts. 754/15, 754/16, 757/1, 757/2, 757/3 have vested in the State Government. 7. The applicant Club had applied in the prescribed form to the Collector for grant of the following lands on lease or sale basis. Survey No. Admeasuring Sq. Mts. 754/15 1720 754/16 2119 757/2 2529 757/2 2125 757/3 2833 Total 11326 Sq. Mts. However, according to the applicant Club, in the DLR report subsequently produced on record, it is clear that 1313 Sq. Mts. of land bearing Survey No. 754/16 is in possession and occupation of Alok Timber i.e. third party and, therefore, a total land admeasuring 10013 Sq. Mts. of the aforesaid survey numbers is in possession of the applicant Club which has actually vested in the State Government. 8. The State Government in its affidavit-in-reply has stated that the State Government has decided to regularize the encroachment made by the applicant Club upon payment of 2.5 times the price of the prevailing market value of the lands in question + NA assessment charges from the date of encroachment till the date of regularization as per the prevalent policy of the Revenue Department issued vide Government Resolution dated 08.01.1980. 9. That according to applicant Club, the prevalent market rate of the land in question is about (Rs. 3500/- to Rs. 4000/- per Sq. Mtr.) and considering 2.5 time the prevailing market value, the applicant Club is liable to pay to the State Government approximately Rs. 10 Crores for regularization of the aforesaid lands in question. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, the applicant Club shall deposit Rs.10.00 Crores payable in 10 monthly installments of Rs. 1 Crore in each month. The amount shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court on or before 7th of every month. The Registry shall deposit the same in a Fixed Deposit for a period of 3 months and continue to renew the same till the Special Civil Applications are finally heard and decided. It is clarified that the applicant Club shall deposit the aforesaid amount subject to the final outcome of the petitions and final decision, which may be taken by the Government. The applicant Club undertakes to pay the balance amount in case the amount determined by the State Government authority is higher than Rs.10.00 Crores. If the amount determined by the State Government authorities is less than Rs. The applicant Club undertakes to pay the balance amount in case the amount determined by the State Government authority is higher than Rs.10.00 Crores. If the amount determined by the State Government authorities is less than Rs. 10.00 Crores, then the balance amount should be refunded to the applicant Club with interest accrued thereon. 11. The applicant Club shall be entitled to use the multi storied parking and hall and other constructions already put up on the aforesaid survey numbers. The applicant Club is, however, not permitted to make any further construction, barring only the finishing and flooring work to the constructed portion, so as to put it in usable condition. 12. It is agreed between the parties that the aforesaid arrangement is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent State Government and that in the event of the concerned authority of the State Government, determining the price of the land in question, the required amount shall have to be paid by the applicant Club within one month. 13. It is also made clear that in the event of non-regularization of the lands in question which is in possession of the applicant Club, or in the event of non-payment of the price that may be determined by the State Government while regularizing the possession of the land in question by the applicant Club or in making any default of payment of installment as indicated above, the State Government would be entitled to recover the possession of the land in question along with the super structure standing thereon and at that time, no equity would be claimed by the applicant Club. The applicant Club will, however, be entitled to get the refund of the amount which is deposited with this Court along with the interest accrued thereon. 14. The applicant Club shall file an undertaking to the above effect and deposit the first installment of Rs. 1 Crore with the Registry of this Court on or before 02.11.2007. The applicant Club will make necessary application to the concerned department of the State Government for regularization of the land in question on or before 07.11.2007. 14. The applicant Club shall file an undertaking to the above effect and deposit the first installment of Rs. 1 Crore with the Registry of this Court on or before 02.11.2007. The applicant Club will make necessary application to the concerned department of the State Government for regularization of the land in question on or before 07.11.2007. The applicant Club will be permitted to make use of the construction in question only after making payment of the first installment and filing of an undertaking to this Court and also making an application for regularization to the State Government as per the above terms. 15. It is made clear that the Court has modified its earlier order only in view of the peculiar facts, more particularly, the affidavit-in reply filed by the State Government and the applicant Club agreeing to make payment of Rs.10 Crores in 10 monthly equal installments subject to the final outcome of the petition as well as the determination of the price for regularization of land in question by the State Government. This decision is, therefore, not cited as a precedent, more particularly when this is an interim arrangement, as originally the land in question belonged to the applicant Club and due to the breach committed by the applicant Club, the land was vested in the State Government and now the State Government has agreed to regularize the possession of the lands in question by the applicant Club. 16. In the above view of the matter, the State Government is hereby directed to take appropriate decision as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before the last installment is paid by the applicant Club. It is further directed that such a decision be placed on the record of the main petitions. The Registry is directed to notify the main petitions for final hearing as soon as the State Government takes the decision and such decision is placed on record. Liberty to move this Court in case of difficulty. 17. Subject to the aforesaid directions and observations, earlier order passed by this Court is modified to the above extent and the present Civil Applications are accordingly disposed of. 18. Copy of this order be placed on the file of the main petitions." 9. Liberty to move this Court in case of difficulty. 17. Subject to the aforesaid directions and observations, earlier order passed by this Court is modified to the above extent and the present Civil Applications are accordingly disposed of. 18. Copy of this order be placed on the file of the main petitions." 9. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 9503 of 2007 has questioned the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 12363 of 2008, which is dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 18.1.2016. It appears that pursuant to further directions issued by this Court in the order dated 25.10.2007, the State Government has taken decision and communicated the same vide letter dated 1.5.2008 to the Collector, Ahmedabad to the effect that, the government has assessed the land price at Rs.20682/- per sq.mt and has accordingly calculated the land price of 10013 sq.mts, which comes to Rs.20,70,88,866/- and adding one time value multiplied by 2.5 times the demand was made to deposit the amount of Rs.51,77,22,165/-. When the said decision was taken, the 3rd respondent-Club has approached this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8764 of 2008, which petition was disposed of by judgment dated 13th August, 2008 by setting aside the communication dated 1.5.2008 with direction to the State Government to take fresh decision as directed by this Court earlier. Further, pursuant to the orders of this Court, further amount of Rs.10 Crore is deposited with the Registry of this Court, which was permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent State along with accrued interest. 10. Valuation of the land on which the 3rd respondent-Club had encroached was further revised by the government and demand is made by fixing the value at Rs.1,01,600/- per sq.mt as per which, the total amount comes to Rs.2,54,33,02,000/-. When such valuation is arrived at by the government for regularization of the unauthorized construction made by the 3rd respondent, the same is questioned by the 3rd respondent-Club by filing Special Civil Application No. 4890 of 2014 and the same is pending before this Court. 11. In these petitions, it is contended by Shri I.H. Syed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the 3rd respondent-Club has encroached on the valuable land of the government and made constructions unauthorizedly and illegally. 11. In these petitions, it is contended by Shri I.H. Syed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the 3rd respondent-Club has encroached on the valuable land of the government and made constructions unauthorizedly and illegally. In spite of the same, no steps have been taken for removing such illegal and unauthorized construction and for eviction of the unauthorized possession of the 3rd respondent-Club. In support of his argument for issuance of direction for demolishing the unauthorized construction, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dipak Kumar Mukherjee vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and others, (2013) 5 SCC 336 and also the judgment in the case of Esha Ekta Apartments Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai, (2013) 5 SCC 357 . 12. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri P.K. Jani, appearing on behalf of respondent no.4-State, has submitted that, when the government has decided to regularize the possession by collecting the 2.5 times the market value, when such determination was made, same is questioned by way of separate Special Civil Application before this Court and the same is pending consideration. 13. On the other hand, Shri R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the 3rd respondent-Club has submitted that, when the decision is already taken by the government to regularize the possession of the land, which is in occupation of the 3rd respondent-Club, same is challenged by the 3rd respondent Club by filing Special Civil Application No. 4890 of 2014, which is pending consideration. It is submitted that, the 3rd respondent-Club came into possession, pursuant to the possession agreement obtained from the owners of the land. However, on the ground that the agriculturists have violated the conditions of grant, the Competent Authority has passed the order for forfeiture of the land in favour of the government. Such orders were not questioned by the 3rd respondent-Club, but representation is made by the 3rd respondent-Club before the government for regularization of the land, which is considered by the government and regularization of possession is ordered by the State Government. It is submitted that, now the dispute is only with regard to the market value and in principle, when regularization is already ordered by the government, no direction can be granted at this stage, as prayed by the petitioner. 14. It is submitted that, now the dispute is only with regard to the market value and in principle, when regularization is already ordered by the government, no direction can be granted at this stage, as prayed by the petitioner. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused several orders passed by this Court from time to time. From a perusal of the order dated 25.10.2007 passed by this Court in Civil Application Nos. 13810 and 13811 of 2007, it is clear that, when it was represented on behalf of the State Government that, they have already taken decision to regularize the unauthorized possession of the land, which is in occupation of the 3rd respondent-Club, on payment of 2.5 times of the prevailing market value of the land plus N.A. assessment charges from the date of encroachment till the date of regularization, this Court has directed the 3 rd respondent to deposit Rs.10.00 Crores with the Registry, which is already deposited by the 3rd respondent-Club. In addition to the said deposit, further amount of Rs.10.00 Crores was also deposited by the 3rd respondent-Club with the government in view of further order passed by this Court. It is clear from the material that, on the representation filed by the 3rd respondent-Club, a decision has already been taken to regularize the unauthorized possession of the land in question. The dispute is only with regard to the market value of the land. At one point of time, earlier when the government has already taken a decision to regularize the possession by charging the market value at the rate of Rs.20682/- per sq.mt, which comes to Rs.20,70,88,866/- and by multiplying 2.5 times the total amount payable was Rs.51,77,22,165/-. When the same was questioned, the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration, whereupon, the valuation was fixed at Rs.101330/- per sq.mt., which is the subject-matter of the petition in Special Civil Application No. 4890 of 2014, which is pending before this Court. 15. When the respondent-State has already taken decision to regularize the possession of the 3rd respondent-Club, no direction can be issued, as prayed for in these petitions. It is also to be noticed that, pursuant to the decision taken by the respondent-State, an amount of Rs.20.00 Crores is already paid by the 3rd respondent-Club to the government. 15. When the respondent-State has already taken decision to regularize the possession of the 3rd respondent-Club, no direction can be issued, as prayed for in these petitions. It is also to be noticed that, pursuant to the decision taken by the respondent-State, an amount of Rs.20.00 Crores is already paid by the 3rd respondent-Club to the government. Whether market value is to be considered as on the date of regularization, or the present market value, is a matter which is to be considered in the pending petition. It is also to be noted that, decision of the government for regularization of possession of the land, which is in possession of the 3rd respondent-Club, is recorded in the order dated 25.10.2007 passed by this Court, which is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of disposal of the Special Leave Petition. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, these petitions are devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged in Special Civil Application No. 9503 of 2007. Consequently, the connected Civil Application stands disposed of. No order as to costs.