ORDER : Vikram Nath, J. 1. The present appeal filed by the original petitioner under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, for challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2018 in Special Civil Application No. 8895 of 2018. 2. The background of fact upon which the present appeal is submitted is that land bearing Sheet No. 35, City Survey No. 2418 admeasuring 253.66 Sq. Mts., situated at Village Dhanera, Taluka : Dhanera, District Banaskantha, which is a disputed land, according to the appellant. The appellant was allotted land admeasuring 1033.01 sq.mtrs., including the land in question was granted by the State authority on 03.04.1956 and on 01.10.1961, Sanad came to be issued in favour of the appellant - Trust. The said grant was for the purpose of running a Library, which the appellant - Trust is running since number of years, which is essentially meant for Kids, as well as women, including the general category population. The appellant - Trust constructed some shops on the northern side as well as on the southern side of the Library and the same are given on Leave and License basis for a period of 11 months and not sold. A request was also made by the appellant - Trust before the Charity Commissioner to enter the shops and Library on PTR register of the Charity Commissioner. The said application is stated to have been granted on 23.03.2012, but then, according to the learned advocate, in suo motu proceedings, the District Collector initiated action against the appellant - Trust in putting up the construction of shops without seeking permission of competent authority and vide order dated 07.06.2001, the District Collector, forfeited the land in question. A revision application came to be filed by the appellant - Trust, aggrieved by the said order, which was numbered as Revision Application No. 51 of 2001 and the said revision application on 03.08.2011 came to be partly allowed, remanding the matter for sympathetic consideration. Subsequently, the remand case was registered as Case No. 15 of 2011 before the District Collector and vide order dated 13.02.2014, the District Collector once again forfeited the land in question as found violation of the terms of the grant. Again the appellant - Trust challenged the said order of the District Collector by preferring Revision Application No. 34 of 2017. Again the appellant - Trust challenged the said order of the District Collector by preferring Revision Application No. 34 of 2017. The learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department was pleased to reject the revision application vide order dated 12/24.04.2018 and it is this order of rejection of revision application was made the subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 8895 of 2018. After hearing both the learned advocates at length, vide order dated 19.11.2018, the learned Single Judge, was pleased to dismiss the petition by issuing certain directions and it is this order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2018, is challenged by the appellant - Trust by way of present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate Shri Nishit Gandhi, appearing on behalf the appellant - Trust has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not appreciating the fact that the appellant - Trust has not stopped running a Library, in fact, even till date, Library is being effectively run for the betterment of the village people and it is only with a view to see that the Library can run effectively and can be maintained well, the shops have been constructed, an income whereof, to be utilized for the cause for which the land was granted. 3.1. Learned advocate Shri Gandhi has submitted that violation which has been alleged to have been committed by the appellant - Trust is of pardonable violation and for which the appellant - Trust is ready and willing to pay any amount of premium or penalty which the authority may impose. Learned advocate Shri Gandhi has submitted that no doubt, the learned Single Judge has issued directions, but the relief with respect to the construction of shops, no response is given. Resultantly, left with no other alternative, apprehending demolition or forfeiture, the appellant has to rush down to this Court. It has further been contended that total as many as 22 shops are constructed, 7 on the ground floor, 4 on the first floor on the western side of the Library, whereas 11 shops on the southern side of the Library have been constructed and given on rent to the third parties whose names have already been mentioned in the memo of revision application as well as petition. Learned advocate Shri Gandhi has submitted that undisputedly, the land is utilized for the purpose for which it was granted, but then, incidental construction which has been made is a construction which can be pardonable by the authority by imposing any amount of premium. 3.2. Learned advocate Shri Gandhi has further submitted that this construction which has been put up is possible to be regularized by the authority and, therefore, instead of dismissing the petition, the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the authority to regularize the construction on payment of premium. Resultantly, the error committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition deserves to be corrected. Learned advocate Shri Gandhi has further submitted that as on date, for a pretty long period, the occupants of the shops are carrying on their business, earning their livelihood and as such, the authority be directed to take appropriate reasonable stand with regard to the regularization of the construction. Learned advocate Shri Gandhi has reiterated and made an attempt to persuade that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous, hence be corrected. 4. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms. Aishwairya Gupta appearing on behalf of the authority has vehemently contended that here is a case in which the appellant - Trust, has first of all obtained the land from the Government, by posing benevolent use of it of running a Library and thereafter, has put up the construction and encashed the allotment and went on recovering the rent. It has further been contended that the original grant is only exclusively for the purpose of running a Library and not for any other purpose. Here, under the guise of getting the land from the authority for Library, the appellant - Trust has put up the construction of more than 22 shops on both the sides and has generated a huge income. Certainly this was not the purpose for which the grant was made by the Government. Here, under the guise of getting the land from the authority for Library, the appellant - Trust has put up the construction of more than 22 shops on both the sides and has generated a huge income. Certainly this was not the purpose for which the grant was made by the Government. It has further been found that, from the record it appears that even while putting up the construction, no prior permission is obtained from any authority by the appellant - Trust and the construction in question is absolutely unauthorized of as many as 26 shops and this is a sheer violation of the cause of grant for which the Collector has rightly exercised the discretion time and again of re-assumption of land. The learned Single Judge has committed no irregularity of any nature in passing the order. In fact, the panchnamas have been drawn to ascertain the status of the construction and upon such verification, the authorities have clearly found that there is a violation of the terms of grant. But additionally, even the construction is also not with the prior permission. When that be so, it is not open for the appellant - Trust to apply for any equitable relief. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Gupta has submitted that the proceedings have been tested twice, and even after remand proceedings, the District Collector, found that there is a sheer illegality committed by the appellant - Trust, the orders came to be passed, which has rightly been appreciated and examined by the learned Single Judge. In absence of any illegality or perversity of any nature, no interference deserves in the present proceedings in favour of the appellant - Trust. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, we found that the allotment which has been made of land in question is solely for the purpose of Library and the said land is to be utilized for the Library purpose only and for no other purpose and there is also condition additionally put while granting the land to the appellant - Trust, reflecting on page 46, that violation of any of the conditions will clearly entail action of resumption of land without any compensation. When that be so, no error is committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the order, which apparently has concluded that unauthorized construction of several shops have been made by the appellant - Trust. While perusing the order in question, we also found that the panchnamas have been executed about the shops which have been constructed, which panchnamas also reflect the construction, but for some shops, the learned Single Judge has perused that there is some letter available of the Commissioner's office dated 06.10.1998 indicating that the appellant was granted permission to make construction of some shops. The panchnama later on, which has been drawn on 31.07.2018 has reflected that 26 shops have been constructed on left and back side of the land. However, when more clarification was sought by the Court from learned Assistant Government Pleader, a further panchnama was also drawn, which was placed on record and as per that panchnama total 22 shops were constructed on the land in question, out of which 7 shops on the ground floor and 4 shops on the first floor on western side of the Library, whereas, 11 shops on southern side of Library are constructed. These panchnamas have clearly constrained the learned Single Judge to observe that the petitioner went on making further construction of shops on the land and the petitioner i.e. the appellant had clear intention to use the land for commercial purpose by putting unauthorized construction of shops. We have noticed that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition has in categorical term considered the contentions which have been raised by the appellant and has on the contrary adopted a reasonable approach to the issue. The relevant observations contained in para 10, we deem it proper to reproduce herein after:- "10. However, while not interfering with the impugned orders, the Court finds it appropriate to direct the Collector to consider whether part of the land is being actually used for the purpose of library. For such consideration by the Collector, the petitioner shall be required to provide details as regards the accounts being maintained to run the library, which would include expenses towards maintaining the building for library, amount of expenses towards salaries to the persons kept to look after the library within a period of ONE MONTH from today. For such consideration by the Collector, the petitioner shall be required to provide details as regards the accounts being maintained to run the library, which would include expenses towards maintaining the building for library, amount of expenses towards salaries to the persons kept to look after the library within a period of ONE MONTH from today. On petitioner providing such details, if the Collector is satisfied that there are sufficient number of books available in the library and that the regular accounts to run the library have been maintained, the Collector may allow that much part of the land whereon the library is run to remain with the petitioner for use thereof only for the purpose of library and to this extent only the impugned order passed by him shall stand modified. While being satisfied on such details, the Collector shall also inquire as to whether the amounts of income stated to be rent income from the shops were properly accounted for or not and if the Collector finds that no such accounts were ever maintained, the Collector shall take appropriate action in the matter. The above exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of TWO MONTHS from the date of receipt of the above details from the petitioner. Since, the Collector shall be now required to decide on the above aspect as regards running of the library on part of the land, the Collector shall not take possession of part of the land where the library is stated to have been run by the petitioner till he takes decision on the above aspect. The Collector shall however take possession of the remaining land with existing construction of the shops thereon after giving reasonable time of ONE MONTH to the persons in possession of the shops. The petition stands dismissed with above directions. Notice stands discharged." 6. In view of the aforesaid circumstance which is prevailing, we see no merit in the case of the appellant and in absence of any infirmity of any nature, we are unable to accept the stand of the appellant. 7. The petition stands dismissed with above directions. Notice stands discharged." 6. In view of the aforesaid circumstance which is prevailing, we see no merit in the case of the appellant and in absence of any infirmity of any nature, we are unable to accept the stand of the appellant. 7. Additionally, we have been brought to the notice by the learned Assistant Government Pleader one communication dated 09.07.2019 in which, the authority in furtherance of the decision delivered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8895 of 2018 dated 19.11.2018, solicited certain information from the Trust, but the particulars which were demanded from the appellant - Trust have not been furnished on the ground that the Letters Patent Appeal is pending against the order of the learned Single Judge. Having perused such communication also, we find that no equitable relief deserves to be granted in favour of the appellant. 8. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 9. Since the main appeal is dismissed, civil application for stay does not survive and the same stands dismissed.