Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 323 (GUJ)

Bhagubhai Hiralal Devani v. State of Gujarat

2020-02-19

A.P.THAKER, S.R.BRAHMBHATT

body2020
JUDGMENT : A.P. Thaker, J. 1. The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed by purportedly Advocate and President of Hitrakshak Samiti Non-Tradition Organization, Porbandar for the following relief’s:- (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned resolution dated 29.5.2010; (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent – authorities, more particularly, respondent nos.1 and 2 to forthwith take possession of the land illegally occupied by respondent no.4 herein, while determining the actual area of land under illegal occupation; (D) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to asses the value of land and initiate proceedings for recovery of penalty in accordance with law more particularly keeping in view the illegal possession of the land in question for a period of 20 years. (E) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Brief fact of the present case is that it is alleged that respondent No.4 herein has encroached upon the Government land and the Government has illegally granted Government land to respondent No.4 – Trust. It is contended that the land admeasuring Acre 83 – 37 Gunthas was granted in favour of the respondent No.4. However, respondent No.4 had encroached upon the large area of land much more than the land granted to it. It is alleged that upon measurement, it revealed that approximately 21 Acres land was in possession of the Trust which was more than the land allotted to respondent No.4 - Trust. It is contended that the map of the DILR revealed that even construction was carried out upon the land which had been illegally/unauthorizedly occupied by the Trust. 2.1 It is further contended that the petitioner herein had, therefore, earlier filed Special Civil Application before this Court which came to be disposed of with the direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the grievance of the petitioner therein and to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 2.2 It is contended that in view of the order of this Court dated 07.10.2008, respondent No.4 Trust requested the Government to grant further land. 2.2 It is contended that in view of the order of this Court dated 07.10.2008, respondent No.4 Trust requested the Government to grant further land. That the action under Section 61 of the Gujarat (Bombay) Land Revenue Code was undertaken with respect to the excess land of the Trust by the Mamlatdar, Porbandar. It is his contention that he had approached the authority i.e. District Collector, Porpandar to take appropriate decision as per the direction of this Court. It is contended that thereafter, vide resolution dated 29.05.2010, the Government has taken a decision to impose penalty upon respondent No.4 – Trust for unauthorized occupation of the land and upon payment of penalty, the said land to be granted to respondent No.4 on tenure basis. It is contended that the penalty was calculated on the basis of total area under unauthorized occupation being 64.348.20 square meters and market rate of land was assessed at Rs.515/- per square meters amounting to Rs.3,31,39,323/- and penalty assessed at 2½ times of the said mount total amount came to be assessed at Rs.8,28,48,308/-. 2.3 It is contended that being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of the State Government dated 29.05.2010, the petitioner made representation to the Collector, but it was not properly considered and market price of the land situated in the vicinity is around Rs.3,000/- per square meter, whereas, the Government has calculated Rs.515/- only. While referring to Sections 60, 62 and 68 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, he has contended that Section 60 provides for penalty for unauthorized occupation of the land and it also provides for summary eviction and forfeiture. It is contended that under Section 62 of the Code, unoccupied land to be granted on certain conditions, whereas, Section 68 deals with occupant’s rights being conditional and power of the Collector to grant permission to any person to occupy any unoccupied land. According to the petitioner, in this case, the private respondent has unauthorizedly occupied the land and now in the name of price and the penalty, unauthorized occupation is being legalised by the authority, which is not in consonance with the law. 2.4 It is contended that the impugned order was passed, approximately 1 1/2 years back, the same has not been objected to by respondent No.4 – Trust nor paid the amount of penalty till then. 3. 2.4 It is contended that the impugned order was passed, approximately 1 1/2 years back, the same has not been objected to by respondent No.4 – Trust nor paid the amount of penalty till then. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.05.2010 passed by the Government Authority and to direct respondents No.1 to 3 to take possession of the land which is illegally occupied by respondent No.4 and to initiate proceedings for recovery of penalty in accordance with law. 4. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 (page No.55) wherein it is specifically stated that in view of the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.6036 of 2008 dated 07.10.2008, the respondent – authorities, after considering all the aspects, have granted permission for regularization of occupation by imposing penalty, which is determined in accordance with the Government Resolutions and as per the policy framed by the State Government from time to time. 4.1 It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 has received letter from the Town Planning Officer, Porpandar dated 08.07.2009 indicating that the District Level Price Committee (DLPC) has decided in its meetings held on 26.06.2009, the amount of Rs.515 per square meter has determined for the land in question and accordingly, necessary approval vide its resolution dated 29.05.2010 was passed by regularizing illegal construction / unauthorized occupation of respondent No.4. It is stated that thereafter, respondent No.1 vide its resolution dated 06.08.2012 modified the earlier resolution dated 29.05.2010 of price of Rs.515 per square meter at 12% to Rs.639 per square meter at 24% of price with penalty, total amount of Rs.4,11,18,372/- which is made subject to the outcome of this petition. It is also stated that respondent No.4 – Trust has paid the amount of Rs.4,11,18,372/- towards the price of the land, Rs.1,28,696/- towards conversion tax and Rs.20,14,800/- towards stamp duty. It is stated that respondent No.4 has also paid the amount towards education cess and non-agricultural cess and, thereafter, vide its order dated 05.09.2012, the land in question allotted to respondent No.4 is also handed over to it. 5. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4, (page No.82), wherein it is stated that the present petition is not filed in public interest at large and it is not a pro bono publico. 5. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4, (page No.82), wherein it is stated that the present petition is not filed in public interest at large and it is not a pro bono publico. It is stated that only purpose of filing the present petition by the petitioner is to create trouble to the Trust functioning since 1984. The approval is also challenged. It is stated that the Trust is running various social activities including spiritual activities and school activities thereon and also providing service and activities in various country also. It is further stated that the allegations made in respect of trespass in the land in question are false and frivolous and the land was earlier run in the name of Gaushala Trust Fund or State Garden or Raghava Farm and it was found to be proper for activities of the Trust. It is stated that the Trust has filed an application dated 20.10.1988 for allotment of the said land on permanent basis and, thereafter, the land in question was granted to the Trust on 18.07.1991 by the department and at that time, the Trust has parted with an amount of Rs.15,79,904/- for the said land and Rs.31,000/- for trees, wells and thus, the Trust has paid total amount of Rs.16,11,654/-. 5.1 It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4 that the Trust was allotted the same parcel of land which was earlier in possession and occupation of the Gaushala Trust Fund and at the time of handing over the possession of the land, no actual measurement was undertaken. It is stated that the Trust has not taken possession of any land in addition to which it had been put in possession and the mistake of area is on account of error in revenue records as indicated in the map. It is stated that the garden known as “Raghavav Farm” consists of 83 Acres of land and additional land, other trees, wells, compound wall etc. and report made by the DILR clearly indicates that few survey numbers were integrated during the time of Ruler and it was continued to be shown and that remarks made by the DILR were not recorded by the State Government in its record and, therefore, it appears that there is discrepancy in measurement of the land. and report made by the DILR clearly indicates that few survey numbers were integrated during the time of Ruler and it was continued to be shown and that remarks made by the DILR were not recorded by the State Government in its record and, therefore, it appears that there is discrepancy in measurement of the land. It is specifically stated that the parcel of land granted to respondent – Trust was entirely in possession of the Gaushala Trust Fund. It is also stated that in the year 1994, all the survey numbers being Survey Nos.239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 248 and 249 which were allotted to the Trust vide order of 1991 came to be consolidated on same nature of tenure and were given survey Nos.239/1 to 239/6 and it was observed that in the said record, they were entered into. It is stated that the Collector has also sanctioned the plans of the Trust for various purposes and accordingly, Chhaya Nagarpalika has also sanctioned the construction on the land. It is stated that when it came to the knowledge of the Trust about the dispute regarding the discrepancy in the measurement of land, it has written a letter to the District Collector, Porbandar dated 19.03.2009 inter alia giving detailed explanation qua allotment of the land. It is stated that after exchange of correspondence between the Trust and the Government Authority, ultimately, the Government vide its resolution dated 29.05.2010 took a decision to impose penalty upon the Trust for unauthorized occupation of the land and upon payment of such penalty, the land would be deemed to be allotted to the Trust and accordingly, the Collector, Porbandar has issued letter to it and the Trust has, accordingly, deposited the amount. It is stated that the Trust has not encroached upon any land, but due to error on the part of concerned Authority in not making entry in the revenue record, it is assumed that the Trust has encroached upon the Government land. 6. The petitioner has filed the affidavit-in-rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4 (page No.172) wherein it is stated that the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.4 is false and the present Public Interest Litigation raised various important issues which are required to be dealt with purely in public interest. 6. The petitioner has filed the affidavit-in-rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4 (page No.172) wherein it is stated that the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.4 is false and the present Public Interest Litigation raised various important issues which are required to be dealt with purely in public interest. He has assailed the authority of the Collector and the Government in granting the land and regularizing unauthorized occupation. The sum and substance of the affidavit-in-rejoinder, is that the respondent – Trust has encroached upon the Government land which cannot be regularized by the Government and no such power lies with the Government and the Collector. It is stated that the action on the part of the Government vide order dated 06.08.2012 does not give any reasons for the Government to reduce the amount of penalty imposed upon the Trust. It is stated that due to the order dated 06.08.2012, the Trust has to deposit an amount of Rs.4,11,18,372/- and other amount. 7. The petitioner has filed the affidavit-in-rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 (page No.182) wherein also, he has stated that the Government and the Collector have no authority to reduce the amount as earlier it was decided to tune of Rs.8,28,48,308/-. He has stated that in view of the order passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation, the authority has decided to recover that much amount but it is reduced by order dated 06.08.2012 only to the tune of Rs.4,11,18,372/-. It is stated that the Trust has prima facie encroached upon the Government land and the action on the part of the authority is illegal and against the public at large. 8. The respondent No.4 has also filed additional affidavit (page No.192), wherein, it has been stated that as per the Tippan made by the DILR (page No.131 and 133), the limits of land bearing survey No.215 admeasuring the 14 Acre – 34 Gunthas were incorporated in survey Nos.239 to 246 since time of old State and land bearing survey No.208 admeasuring 1 Acre – 2 Guntha was incorporated in survey No.248 and 249 since time of old State time. It is stated that the Trust is utilized the land since the date of its allotment. 9. It is stated that the Trust is utilized the land since the date of its allotment. 9. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1, (page No.233), wherein, it is stated that the State Government has framed the policy for regularization of unauthorized occupation of the land and imposing penalty thereof. While referring to the impugned resolution dated 29.05.2010 imposing upon the penalty and charging the market value thereof, it is stated that the department has passed the said resolution on the basis of policy of the State Government. It is further stated that in the resolution dated 21.02.2011, the State Government has framed a policy wherein the cases where any Trusts, persons or institutions found to have encroached upon the Government land and if such Trusts, persons or institutions were being run for public interest then in such case, the Government has laid the policy that instead of levying 2.5 times penalty only one time market value will be levied as penalty amount keeping in nature of larger public interest. It is also stated that the said resolution was passed to consider the cases in which the encroachment was not with some malice and overall it would be in public interest to regularize with payment as decided by the Government. While referring to preamble of the State policy, it is stated that respondent No.4 – Trust had made an application vide letter dated 23.08.2011 to regularize the encroachment in question by recovering single fold price instead of two and half fold and the same was placed for consideration on 27.12.2011 before the Encroachment Committee which vide resolution dated 21.02.2011 recommended for regularization by recovering single fold price. It is stated that the Encroachment Committee consists of Chief Minister with the Minister of Revenue, Minister of Panchayat, Miniser of Urban Development, Minister of Agriculture, Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretary (Expenditure), Finance Department and Additional Secretary (Land) Revenue Department. It is also contended that the Committee has considered various factors which are enumerated in para-10 of the reply. It is stated therein that the decision of the Committee was placed before the Cabinet and, thereafter, the decision was taken in favour of respondent No.4 as special case by the State Government and it is within the powers of the State to regularize the unauthorized occupation. It is stated therein that the decision of the Committee was placed before the Cabinet and, thereafter, the decision was taken in favour of respondent No.4 as special case by the State Government and it is within the powers of the State to regularize the unauthorized occupation. It is stated that no illegality or irregularity has been committed and, therefore, the challenge in the petition is misdirected and baseless. It is stated that the encroachment has been regularized by resolution dated 06.08.2012 and the Trust has already paid the amount to the Government. 10. The petitioner has also filed affidavit-in-rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 (page No.269), wherein also, he has stated that the authority has committed illegal act and has not taken any action under the Bombay Land Revenue Code and its Rules. It is stated that the entire exercise done by the Government is illegal and once the decision has been arrived at to impose penalty of 2.5%, it cannot be reduced to 1% and new policy of 2011 is not applicable in the present case. He has prayed to interfere with the exercise undertaken by the Government and to pass necessary appropriate orders in the writ petition. 11. Heard Mr.Nikhil Kariel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Krina Calla, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel with Mr.Jay Thakkar, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the materials placed on record. 12. Mr.Nikhil Kariel, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of writ petition and the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioner herein. He has also submitted that respondent No.4 has encroached upon the Government land and no penalty was paid by it. According to him, in view of the provisions contained in the Bombay Land Revenue Code, the Government ought to have removed the encroachment made by the Trust from the land in question. He has submitted that the Government has no authority to permit respondent No.4 for occupation thereof. He has submitted that when it was revealed from the report of the competent authority, it is abundant duty of the Government to get back the land from the Trust by removing all constructions etc. He has submitted that the Government has no authority to permit respondent No.4 for occupation thereof. He has submitted that when it was revealed from the report of the competent authority, it is abundant duty of the Government to get back the land from the Trust by removing all constructions etc. He has submitted that as the Government was not taking any steps, the petitioner had earlier filed writ petition wherein this Court had directed respondents No.1 to 3 for deciding the application of the petitioner regarding encroachment made by respondent No.4 – Trust on the land in question. However, instead of deciding the question raised by the petitioner as an Advocate and President of the Hitrakshak Samity and instead of removing the encroachment of the Government land by respondent No.4, the authority has proposed to get it regularized by imposing penalty as well as regularization charges in all more than Rs.8.00 Crore vide order dated 29.05.2010. 12.1 According to Mr.Kariel, learned counsel, this action of the authority is not in consonance with the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Mr.Kariel, learned counsel has also submitted that during the pendency of the petition, on the basis of the new policy of 2011, the Trust has moved the Government for reduction of regularization charges and penalty to the Government and the Government has allowed respondent No.4 – Trust to occupy the land on making payment of half of the amount of earlier amount of Rs.8.00 Crore and odd and reduced it to Rs.4.00 Crore and odd. He has submitted that this action of respondent – authority is bad in law as when earlier in 2010, the matter was decided finally and regularization charges plus penalty of total amount of Rs.8.00 Crore and more was already decided, the State Authority cannot apply the policy of 2011 in the present case retrospectively. He has submitted that this Court has taken into account this submission vide interim order dated 14.09.2015. He has submitted that this Court has taken into account this submission vide interim order dated 14.09.2015. He has also submitted that when prima facie this Court was of the view that the new policy could not have been applied retrospectively, then at a final stage, now, this Court may not take different view of the matter regarding applicability of the new policy of 2011 and this Court may hold that the action on the part of the State Authority in reducing the amount from Rs.8.00 Crore and odd to Rs.4.00 Crore and odd is bad in law. 12.2 Mr.Kariel, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has no personal interest and due to his filing of the Public Interest Litigation, the authority has taken steps to collect the amount from the Trust. He has submitted that had this Public Interest Litigation was not filed, then, the Government might not have taken any steps. According to his submissions, due to filing of this writ petition, the authority has recognized that there is encroachment on Government land by respondent No.4 – Trust and has also tried to regularize it while imposing / charging fees and penalty thereof. He has submitted that the purpose of filing this writ petition has been satisfied to some extent. Therefore, according to Mr.Kariel, learned counsel, this Court may issue appropriate direction by quashing and setting aside the resolution dated 29.05.2010 and subsequent order and direct the respondent – authority to take the possession of the land which is illegally occupied by respondent No.4 - Trust. 13. Per contra, Ms.Krina Calla, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No.1 and 2 has submitted that the State Government has authority to allot the Government land to anybody and there is change in the policy at the relevant time. She has submitted that earlier also, there was policy of the Government to allot Government land for certain purposes. In the present case, according to her, earlier, the Government has decided to recover the amount from respondent No.4 - Trust for the land alleged to be encroached upon by the Trust, by directing it to pay amount of Rs.8.00 Crore and odd vide order dated 29.05.2010. She has submitted that as the Government has authority to give land to anybody, the say of the petitioner that the Government has no right, is devoid of merits. She has submitted that as the Government has authority to give land to anybody, the say of the petitioner that the Government has no right, is devoid of merits. While drawing attention of the Court on various materials placed on record, she has submitted that during the pendency of the payment of Rs.8.00 Crore and more, the policy of 2011 came into existence and on that basis, the Trust has moved the Government for reduction of regularizing charges and penalty and accordingly, the exercise was undertaken from the lowest authority to the higher authority and, thereafter, the Cabinet has approved the proposal received from the committee and thereby has reduced the regularization charges as well as penalty thereof to the tune of Rs.4.00 Crore and odd. According to her, the action taken by the State Government is legal and valid and it is within the authority of the State. She has submitted that the present writ petition may be dismissed. 14. Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel with Mr.Jay Thakkar, learned counsel for respondent No.4 – Trust has submitted that the credential of the petitioner is challenged by respondent No.4 in affidavit-in-reply and those facts have not been controverted by the petitioner herein. Mr.Joshi, learned senior counsel has also submitted that there was no fault on the part of the Trust – respondent No.4 for occupation of the land in question. While inviting the attention of the Court to the Tippan and note made therein, he has submitted that there is overlapping of the land of survey number in dispute. According to him, the Revenue Authority has failed to make necessary correction in its record and, therefore, though there was no illegal encroachment by respondent No.4, it has given rise to the grievance being raised by the petitioner personally. Mr.Joshi, learned senior counsel has also submitted that earlier the land was with one Gaushala Trust Fund and, thereafter, the same land was allotted to respondent No.4 – Trust and there was re-survey of the land and in that proceeding due to amalgamation of two survey numbers, though the Trust has not encroached upon any land illegally, the possession of the Trust has been shown to be encroachment. He has vehemently submitted that the Trust has not encroached upon any land and it is using the land as was granted to the Trust by the Government. He has vehemently submitted that the Trust has not encroached upon any land and it is using the land as was granted to the Trust by the Government. 14.1 Mr.Joshi, learned senior counsel has submitted that the occupation of the land by respondent No.4 was ordered to be regularized by the competent authority and initially, 2.5 time penalty was imposed along with regularization charges amounting to Rs.8.00 Crore and odd. Mr.Joshi, learned senior counsel has also submitted that as the Trust was doing charitable activities, the Trust applied to the Government for reconsideration of the amount. According to him, the State Authority, therefore, after considering the Government policy of 2011 and other policy, took exercise and the State Government has, while relying upon the decision of the committee which consists of many Ministers, decided to reduce the penalty to one time and accordingly, respondent No.4 was directed to pay Rs.4.00 Crore and odd. He has submitted that this much amount has been deposited by respondent No.4 – Trust. He has submitted that the Government can allot Government land to anybody and there is no bar on the authority of the Government to part with the Government land to any individual or Trust or company etc. According to him, it is prerogative authority of the State Government to grant or regularize the unauthorized occupation of the land by any individual or Trust or company or NGOs etc. 14.2 Mr.Joshi, learned senior counsel has also submitted that the entire exercise done by the State Government is legal and valid and no fault can be found on the part of the State Government. He has specifically submitted that credential of the petitioner is doubtful and he has filed the writ petition purporting to be Public Interest Litigation with an ulterior motive. He has submitted that earlier, the price of the land was considered at Rs.515 per square meter, whereas, in the new assessment, the price has been raised to Rs.639 per square meter. He has urged to dismiss the present writ petition. 15. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and having considered the materials placed on record, it reveals that initially, the land was in occupation of Gaushala Trust Fund and respondent No.4 – Trust has applied for allotment of land on permanent basis to the Government. He has urged to dismiss the present writ petition. 15. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and having considered the materials placed on record, it reveals that initially, the land was in occupation of Gaushala Trust Fund and respondent No.4 – Trust has applied for allotment of land on permanent basis to the Government. It also reveals that after following the due procedure, the land in question was ordered to be allotted to respondent No.4 – Trust and the Collector, Porbandar has issued notice to the Trust for payment of price for allotment of land and accordingly, the Trust has paid such allotment. It also reveals that on 14.10.1991, the land admeasuring Acre 83 – 37 Gunthas has been granted in favour of respondent No.4 – Trust and necessary panch rojkam was also made, as reflected from page No.129. 16. It also reveals from page No.134 that the survey numbers which were allotted to the Trust vide order of 1991 came to be consolidated on the same nature of tenure and were given survey No.239/1 to 239/6. It also appears from page No.137 that amended order was passed by the Collector with clarification as to survey numbers. As per page No.139, the Collector, Porbandar passed the order regarding passing of plans of construction of entire land. 17. It also reveals from the documentary evidence that the Chhaya Nagarpalika has also issued sanction letter for construction in 2001. It is also an admitted fact that the present petitioner had preferred Special Civil Application No.6036 of 2008 wherein the respondent No.4 – Trust impleaded as party respondent and the said petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 07.10.2008 by directing the respondent – State Authority to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. It also reveals that after passing the order by this Court, the petitioner herein has made the representations on 05.11.2008, 09.12.2008, 29.12.2008 and 02.01.2010 before the Collector, Porbandar requesting them to take possession of the land from the respondent No.4 – Trust. 18. It also reveals from the page No.145 of the compilation that respondent No.4 – Trust wrote a letter to the District Collector, Porbandar providing detailed explanation qua allotment of the land and discrepancy in the revenue record. 18. It also reveals from the page No.145 of the compilation that respondent No.4 – Trust wrote a letter to the District Collector, Porbandar providing detailed explanation qua allotment of the land and discrepancy in the revenue record. As per page No.152, Mamlatdar, Porbandar issued notice qua encroachment on the land and further directing the authorized officer of the Trust to remain present. It also reveals from page No.153 that respondent No.4 – Trust replied to that notice providing detailed explanation qua allotment of the exact land from Gaushala Trust Fund and further explained the facts of discrepancy in the revenue records that survey No.215 admeasuring Acre 14 – 34 Gunthas was merged in survey Nos.239 and 246 and Survey No.208 admeasuring Acre 1 and 2 Gunthas was merged in survey Nos.248 and 249 since the time of Ruler. It also appears from the record that the City Planner, Porbandar has made report qua measurement of the land and penalty to be imposed for regularization of the land. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.05.2010, the State Government, respondent No.1 herein had taken a decision by way of resolution to impose penalty upon the Trust for unauthorized occupation of the land and upon payment of such penalty, the said land was to be granted to respondent No.4 – Trust on tenure basis and the penalty was assessed 2.5 times and total amount came to Rs.8,28,48,308/-. It reveals from the record that (page No.156), the Collector, Porbandar issued a letter dated 27.08.2010 to respondent No.4 – Trust, inter alia, intimating it to make payment of penalty within prescribed time. 19. It also reveals from the record that the petitioner herein has made representation pointing out to the State Authority that the decision taken on 29.05.2010 is not in accordance with law and the penalty imposed has not been assessed properly and instead of regularizing the illegality, the State Government ought to have taken back the land in question. 20. It also reveals from the record that on 21.02.2011, the State Government has passed the resolution regarding constitution of committee for regularization of encroachment on the Government land. It also reveals that the Trust made an application to regularize the encroachment in question by recovering single fold price instead of 2 and half fold. 20. It also reveals from the record that on 21.02.2011, the State Government has passed the resolution regarding constitution of committee for regularization of encroachment on the Government land. It also reveals that the Trust made an application to regularize the encroachment in question by recovering single fold price instead of 2 and half fold. It also reveals from the record that there was a decision of the committee dated 27.12.2011 for regularization and encroachment with single fold penalty and official note for consideration of Cabinet was moved by the committee. It also reveals that on 12.04.2012, there was communication by the Deputy Secretary (Cabinet), General Administration Department addressed to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar accepting the proposal for regularizing the encroachment by recovering single fold price. Accordingly, on 06.08.2012, the Revenue Department passed amended order reducing the amount of penalty imposed earlier and increasing the rate of price of land per square meter to Rs.639/- and thereby reduced the penalty to Rs.4,11,18,372/-. Further, it also reveals from the record that in view of the letter of the Collector, Porbandar for making payment within prescribed time, on 28.08.2012, respondent No.4 – Trust has paid the aforesaid amount and has also paid the stamp duty of Rs.20,14,800/-. It also reveals from page No.69 that the Trust has addressed a letter to the Mamlatdar, Porbandar informing payment of penalty made by the Trust. 21. It is an admitted fact that the Collector has passed an order on 05.09.2012 regarding regularization of land and its allotment to the respondent – Trust inter alia recording in detail the activities of the Trust, discrepancy in the revenue record, allotment of the exact land to the Trust which was in possession of Gaushala Trust Fund with compound wall etc. It is an admitted fact that the Circle Officer, Porbandar vide panchnama had handed over the land admeasuring Acre 15 – 36 Gunthas to the respondent – Trust vide circular dated 14.09.2012. 22. It is also an admitted fact that on 14.09.2015, this Court has passed the following interim measures:- (i) Rule returnable on 11.01.2016. It is an admitted fact that the Circle Officer, Porbandar vide panchnama had handed over the land admeasuring Acre 15 – 36 Gunthas to the respondent – Trust vide circular dated 14.09.2012. 22. It is also an admitted fact that on 14.09.2015, this Court has passed the following interim measures:- (i) Rule returnable on 11.01.2016. (ii) By interim order, the operation and implementation of order dated 6.8.2012 passed by the State Government read with order dated 5.9.2012 passed by the District Collector shall remain stayed and suspended with the further direction that if the balance amount of Rs.4,17,29,936/- with the accrued interest at the 10% interest per month from 29.05.2010 is deposited by respondent no.4 trust with the District Collector Porbandar on or before 15.12.2015, there shall be no eviction proceedings against the respondent no.4 trust, but with the further clarification that in the event of failure to deposit the differential amount with the accrued interest, the interim relief granted against the eviction proceedings shall automatically stand vacated, and thereafter the appropriate action for eviction shall be taken by the competent authority against respondent no.4. 23. Against the said order, the Trust has filed Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court wherein the order of this Court regarding recovery of balance amount of Rs.4,17,29,926/- has been stayed subject to the petitioner – Trust filing an undertaking before the High Court to the effect that in case the writ petition is eventually decided against it, the amount shall be deposited by the petitioner with interest at the rate of 10% per annum w.e.f. 29.05.2010. It is also an admitted fact that on this basis, the Managing Trustee of the Trust has filed undertaking in this case. 24. At this juncture, the Government Resolution of the Revenue Department being Resolution No.Encroachment/102010/1091/L dated 21.02.2011 needs to be considered, which reads as under:- Regarding constitution of a Committee for regulation of encroachments on Government lands. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Revenue Department Resolution No.: Encroachment/102010/1091/L Sachivalay, Gandhinagar Date:- 21/02/2011 Preamble:- There are several organizations such as educational institutions, Panjrapoles (asylum for old and unserviceable animals), old age homes, etc. which function on a no-profit no-loss basis in the society. There are cases where, due to non-availability of proper guidance at proper time, encroachment on Government lands, without any malice intention, is made by such organizations. 2. which function on a no-profit no-loss basis in the society. There are cases where, due to non-availability of proper guidance at proper time, encroachment on Government lands, without any malice intention, is made by such organizations. 2. Normally, it remains the policy of the Government to not to allow any encroachment on Government lands whatsoever and to remove it from the same. However, in case, where encroachment requires to be regularised, punitive penalty is imposed and 2.5 times the market price is recovered. But, it was under consideration of the Government whether to regularise encroachments by recovering single time price for the encroachments as mentioned in the paragraph above, where encroachment is occurred without any malice intention by a public institution carrying out welfare activities and is really useful to the society, and as per Rule 32 and 32(a) of the Land Revenue Rules they are eligible to get Government lands and whose financial condition is not so sound but are carrying out welfare activities for public interest and imposition of payment of 2.5 times market price to regularise the encroachment is not practicable or it is not financially viable for a trust, organisation or individual and shutting down the welfare activities of the trusts or organizations for the sake of removal of the encroachment seem to be inappropriate in public interest. Resolution: Government, after careful consideration, is pleased to direct to constitute a Committee as under: (1) Hon. Minister (Finance) (2) Hon. Minister (Revenue) (3) Hon. Minister (Panchayats) (4) Hon. Minister (Urban Development) (5) Hon. Minister (Agriculture) (6) Principal Secretary (Expenditure), Finance Department (7) Principal Secretary (Revenue) Such cases may be represented before this Committee and it shall take decision, if it finds it appropriate, to regularise encroachments after recovery of single time rate. 3. The Committee shall take into consideration following details while regularising encroachments on payment of single time rate. (1) Organisation should be 100% charitable (2) committee shall decide the area of encroachment for regularisation which is necessary to carry on activities by the concerned organisation. (3) As per prevalent policy of the Government, where one time rate is more than Rs.1 Crore, a separate proposal is to be submitted for Cabinet approval. By and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat. (Anis Mankad) Joint Secretary Revenue Department, Gujarat Government 25. (3) As per prevalent policy of the Government, where one time rate is more than Rs.1 Crore, a separate proposal is to be submitted for Cabinet approval. By and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat. (Anis Mankad) Joint Secretary Revenue Department, Gujarat Government 25. Thus, mechanism for regularization of encroachment on Government land by Educational Institutions, Panjrapoles asylum for old and unserviceable animals etc. has been created by the Government. It is an admitted fact that earlier in 2010, the Government has sanctioned the land which is alleged to be encroached upon by the Trust. It also reveals that the Trust has made application for reduction of the amount from Rs.8 Crore and more and in view of the circular of the Government of 2011, the application of the Trust has been scrutinized by the Government, while considering the activities of the Trust, and further exercise of deciding the price of the land and necessary re-valuation of the land was carried out. The concerned authority has forwarded all necessary particulars to the Government for consideration and after perusing the materials placed before the Government, the Cabinet has taken decision to charge single time market price and at the same time, the price earlier fixed at Rs.515 per square meter was enhanced to Rs.639 per square meter. 26. The State Government has taken stand that in view of the policy of the Government, the Town Planning Officer, Porbandar at the relevant time, informed the Collector that the District Level Price Committee has decided in its meeting held on 26.06.2009 that the amount of Rs.515 square per meter is determined for the land in question and accordingly, respondent No.1 has issued resolution dated 29.05.2010 granting approval to levy Rs.515/- per square meter for regularizing the illegal construction / unauthorized occupation of the Trust. The State Authority has also taken a stand that vide its resolution dated 06.08.2012 modified its resolution dated 29.05.2010 by increasing the price from Rs.515 per square meter to Rs.639 per square meter and reducing factor of 2.5 to single fold and total amount of Rs.4,11,18,372/- was determined as price of the land and Rs.1,28,696/- was treated as conversion tax and Rs.20,14,800/- was treated as stamp duty and the same amount has been paid by the respondent No.4 – Trust. It is also the stand of the State Authority that vide order dated 05.09.2012, the land in question has been allotted to respondent No.4 – Trust and actual possession was handed over to it on 14.09.2012. The stand of the State Authority in the affidavit-in-reply is that no undue benefit is extended in respect of the land allotted to respondent No.4 – Trust. 27. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to refer to Sections 60, 61, 62 and 68 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, which reads as under:- “60.Written permission of Mamlatdar or Mahalkari required previous to taking up unoccupied land. - Any person desirous of taking up unoccupied land which has been alienated must, previously to entering upon occupation obtain the permission in writing of the Mamlatdar or Mahalkari. 61. Penalties for unauthorized occupation of land. - [Any person who shall unauthorizedly enter upon occupation of any land set apart for any special purpose, or any unoccupied land which has not been alienated, and any person who uses or occupies any such land to the use or occupation of which by reason of any of the provisions of this Act he is not entitled or has ceased to be entitled shall,] if the land which he unauthorizedly occupies forms part of an assessed survey number, pay the assessment of the entire number for the whole period of his [unauthorized] occupation, and if the land so occupied by him has not been assessed, such amount of assessment as would be leviable for the said period in the same village on the same extent of similar land [used for] the same purpose; and shall also be liable, at the discretion of the Collector, to a fine not exceeding [one per cent, of the prevalent annual statement of rate (Jantri) as may be notified by the State Government from time to time,] if he has taken up the land for purposes of cultivation, and not exceeding such limit as may be fixed in rules made in this behalf under section 214, if he has [used it for] any non-agricultural purpose. The Collector’s decision as to the amount of assessment payable for the land unauthorizedly occupied shall be conclusive, and in determining its amount occupation for [a portion] of year shall be counted as for a whole year. The Collector’s decision as to the amount of assessment payable for the land unauthorizedly occupied shall be conclusive, and in determining its amount occupation for [a portion] of year shall be counted as for a whole year. The person unauthorizedly occupying any such land may be summarily evicted by the collector, and any crop raised in the land shall be liable to forfeiture, and any building or other construction, erected thereon shall also, if not removed by him after such written notice as the Collector may deem reasonable, be liable to forfeiture, [or to summary removal]. Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Collector, and any property so forfeited shall be disposed of as the Collector may direct [and the cost of the removal of any encroachment under this section shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue]. 62. Unoccupied land may be granted on conditions.- It shall be lawful for the Collector subject to such rules as may from time to time be made by the [State Government] in this behalf, to require the payment of a price for unalienated land or to sell the same by auction and to annex such conditions to the grant as he may deem fit, before permission to occupy is given under section 60. The price (if any) paid for such land shall include the price of the [Government] right to all trees not specifically reserved under the provisions of section 40 and shall be recoverable as an arrears of land revenue.]. 68. The price (if any) paid for such land shall include the price of the [Government] right to all trees not specifically reserved under the provisions of section 40 and shall be recoverable as an arrears of land revenue.]. 68. Occupant’s rights are conditional.- An occupant is entitled to the use and occupation of his land for the period, if any, to which his [tenure] is limited, or if the period is unlimited, or a survey settlement has been extended to the land in perpetuity conditionally on the payment of the amounts due on account of the land revenue for the same, according to the provisions of this Act, or of any rules made under this Act, or of any other law for the time being in force, and on the fulfilment of any other terms [or conditions / lawfully annexed to his [tenure]: [Provided that nothing in this or any other section shall make it, or shall be deemed ever to have made it, unlawful for the Collector at any time to grant permission to any person to occupy any unalienated unoccupied land, for such period and on such conditions as he may, subject to [rules made by the [ [State] Government in this behalf], prescribed, and in any such case the occupancy shall, whether a survey settlement has been extended to the land or not, be held only for the period and subject to the conditions so prescribed].” 28. Now, on perusal of the materials placed on record, it transpires that earlier the land was allotted to the Gaushala Trust Fund and the same land has been allotted to respondent No.4 – Trust. The factum of narration by respondent No.4 – Trust in affidavit-in-reply at page No.82 onwards that at the relevant time, when the land was handed over to it which was earlier occupied by the Gaushala Trust Fund, no actual measurement was made and the respondent No.4 – Trust has not made any encroachment and the mistake occurred due to error in the revenue records has not been denied by the State Government. It also reveals from Tippan that few survey numbers were integrated at the time of the earstwhile Ruler and it was continued to be so. This fact has not been denied by the State Authority. This fact is also revealed from page No.131 and 133 which are Tippans prepared by the DILR. It also reveals from Tippan that few survey numbers were integrated at the time of the earstwhile Ruler and it was continued to be so. This fact has not been denied by the State Authority. This fact is also revealed from page No.131 and 133 which are Tippans prepared by the DILR. It is also found from the materials that there is no denial of the factual aspect that respondent No.4 – Trust is dealing with the various Charitable and Social activities which includes Hostel for students, Schools and Colleges, Staff Quarters, Meal Centers, Guest House, Prayer Hall, Temple, Open Air Theater, Officers, Publication House, Library, Sports Complex, Gaushala, Ayurvedic Farming, Garden and Trees area, Care Centers for cow etc. on the basis of the principle of ‘no profit no loss’. Thus, the activities of respondent No.4 is in the public nature. It also reveals that the Government has considered these very activities of the Trust – respondent No.4 and merely, it has revised the amount from Rs.8,28,48,308/- to Rs.4,11,18,372/- vide its order dated 06.08.2012 which is issued after taking into consideration the activities of the Trust. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that while revising the penalty of 2.5% to single time payment, the authority has taken into consideration the Government resolution of the year 2011. The policy of 2011 is in the nature of amendment of earlier policy and it is procedural one in nature. It is not in punitive nature. Being merely procedural aspects, the Government has an ample power to pass necessary orders, relating to the Government lands which includes allotment, or regularization of illegal occupation of land by individual or to institutions. The Government has authority to revise the amount of price of land and/or penalty thereof at any point of time. It is pertinent to note that by passing the impugned Government Resolution of 2011, it clearly appears that such land may be regularized by the State which has been either encroached upon or taken into utilization by the various entity, which are specified therein, with rider that there is no malice on the part of such entity or such possession, then the Government, after following procedure therein, could allot and/or regularize the same. Of course, in this case, earlier vide order dated 29.05.2010, the amount of payment was considered at the rate of 2.5% and, thereafter, the Trust has applied to the Government for reconsideration and the Government has taken into consideration the activities of the Trust and following its policy of 2011 reduced the amount of penalty from 2.5% to single time payment. Of course, at the same time price of the land has been increased from Rs.515 to Rs.639. This action of the State Government cannot be termed as mala fide one. It also reveals from the said order that the detail exercise has been carried out from bottom upto the Cabinet and after approval of the Cabinet amount has been reduced. Of course, this order is made with the condition that it shall be subject to the outcome of the present Public Interest Litigation. 29. On perusal of the entire materials placed on record, it clearly appears that the exercise undertaken by the State Government of granting or regularizing the occupation of the land to the Trust dated 29.05.2010 cannot be termed as an illegal action on the part of the Government. At the same time, the action on the part of the Government revising the price of the land and reduction in the amount to be paid by respondent No.4 – Trust for regularization of the land of the Trust on the basis of the policy of 2011 and considering the social activities by the Trust and on that too, “no profit no loss basis”, are within the power of the State Government and same could not be termed as illegal or invalid in the eyes of law. 30. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the purpose of Public Interest Litigation is for redresssal of the grievance of the public at large. The Public Interest Litigation is not an adversarial form of litigation. The person / any individual can initiate such Public Interest Limitation for the interest of the public at large. In case of filing such Public Interest Litigation, the intention of such person, always be a public at large and no personal grievance can be raised in disguise of Public Interest Litigation. The person / any individual can initiate such Public Interest Limitation for the interest of the public at large. In case of filing such Public Interest Litigation, the intention of such person, always be a public at large and no personal grievance can be raised in disguise of Public Interest Litigation. Now, on materials placed on record, it clearly transpires that the present petitioner has filed the Public Interest Litigation on personal grievance as it reflects from the communications made by him to the authority. It appears from the materials that he has made applications to the authority in his personal capacity and insisted that the Authority should inform him before taking any decision in the matter. It is his personal grievance that before taking decision, he was not heard by the Government Authority. Even in written communication, he has referred to himself as an Advocate and as President of purporting Hitrakshak Samity but no documentary evidence pertaining to his activities or of the Hitrakshak Samity is produced by the petitioner. Even he has contested writ petition in a manner like that of adversarial form of litigation. Be that as it may. 31. Without expressing further regarding conduct of the petitioner, it is crystal clear that the State Government has framed it’s policy for regularization of encroachment or unauthorized occupation of land by various entity, referred to in the policy of 2011. Such policy being in nature of procedural one, the Sate Government can, in a given case and after taking into consideration of all the aspects of individual case, apply the same with retrospective effect, the such action of State Government cannot be termed as illegal or invalid. 32. In view of the above, the present Public Interest Litigation is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.