JUDGMENT : VINEET KOTHARI, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.3.2017 of the learned Single Judge (Coram : Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.), allowing Special Civil Application No.4550 of 2017 filed by the Respondent – Sursangji Dholaji Thakor, who claimed to be in possession of the land admeasuring 5 Acres and 37 Gunthas situated in Bopal, Ahmedabad in Survey No.358 (Block No.482) which was declared to be Government Waste Land as per Revenue Entry Nos.2494, 2575, 2579 and 2580. Out of the said land, some portions were allotted to other persons like (i) Ganpatji Becharji (ii) Elavanji Chhagaji (iii) Pathaji Shanaji and (iv) Shivaji Hemaji. 2. The case of the Writ Petitioner - Sursangji Dholaji Thakor was that the remaining land admeasuring 1 Acre and 20 Gunthas was in his cultivatory possession for long period and, therefore, in terms of the State Policy dated 1.3.1960 (Annexure-R2 on record), the said land ought to have been allotted to him in terms of the said policy decision. The Respondent - Sursangji Dholaji Thakor had earlier approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.13910 of 2013 which came to be allowed by the same learned Single Judge (Coram : Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.) setting aside the impugned order of the District Collector and revisional order of SSRD and the petition was allowed with following observations : “13. It is not the case of the Collector that the petitioner is not in possession of the land. As indicated earlier, both the orders of the Collector dated 21.12.2009 and 19.10.2010, contain no reasons whatsoever. Despite this glaring fact, the SSRD has upheld the unreasoned cryptic order of the Collector dated 19.10.2010. Not only that, the SSRD has proceeded to give his own reasons and has then stated that he confirms the order of the Collector. The SSRD has clearly accepted the position that if the person concerned is in possession of the land in question prior to 31.03.1972, such possession can be regularised as per the Policy of the State Government. The petitioner clearly falls within the policy of the State Government. However, the SSRD further goes on to say that the extracts of Village Form No.7/12 indicate that the petitioner is cultivating the land since the year 1991-92. The petitioner clearly falls within the policy of the State Government. However, the SSRD further goes on to say that the extracts of Village Form No.7/12 indicate that the petitioner is cultivating the land since the year 1991-92. As per the Policy of the State Government, accepted by the SSRD, it is the possession of the petitioner that would be material and not the cultivation of the land by him. As per the policy, the possession has to be prior to 31.03.1972, the cultivation of the land is not material. In the present case, there is evidence on record that the possession of the petitioner is from the years 1940 to 1972, though the cultivation has been recorded in the revenue records from the year 1991-92. In view of the above, there is no legally justifiable reason for the rejection of the application of the petitioner who deserves to be accorded the same treatment on the basis of the policy of the State Government, as has been given to similarly situated persons who have been granted lands out of the same Block. The petitioner cannot be discriminated against as his case is similar to those persons who have been granted land on permanent ownership basis. To do so would amount to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by the Collector, which cannot be permitted. The petitioner has also expressed his willingness to pay premium for the land. 14. As the impugned order of the Collector is an unreasoned and cryptic one, the confirmation of the said order by the SSRD is highly unjustified and unsustainable in law, especially as the order of the Collector cannot stand scrutiny of law. Both the impugned orders of the Collector and the SSRD are unsustainable in law. 15. For the aforestated reasons, this Court considers it just and proper to pass the following order: (i) The impugned order dated 06.10.2012, passed by the SSRD and the order dated 19.10.2010, passed by the District Collector, Ahmedabad, are hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioner shall make a fresh application for the grant of the subject land to him before the Collector, within a period of fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the order. It will be open for the petitioner to produce additional material with the application. (ii) The petitioner shall make a fresh application for the grant of the subject land to him before the Collector, within a period of fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the order. It will be open for the petitioner to produce additional material with the application. (iii) The Collector, Ahmedabad, is directed to pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law, on the application preferred by the petitioner for the grant of the subject land, keeping in mind the material on record as well as any additional material that may be produced by the petitioner. The Collector shall also keep in mind the observations made by this Court in this order and ensure that the same treatment is meted out to the petitioner as has been given to similarly situated persons. (iv) Before deciding the application, the Collector, Ahmedabad, shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (v) The application shall be decided by the Collector as expeditiously as possible but not later than six weeks from its receipt, by passing the speaking order, considering the willingness of the petitioner to pay premium. 16. The petition is allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Sd/- (SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.)” 3. In pursuance of the said decision of the learned Single Judge, the Writ Petitioner again approached the District Collector for allotment of the said land which again came to be rejected by the District Collector by the impugned order dated 23.1.2017, giving detailed reasons for such rejection again. The relevant extract of the said order in vernacular Gujarati language is quoted below for ready reference : OTHER LANGUAGE English Translation : “The applicant/petitioner, by filing S.C.A. No.13910/2013 in the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, has prayed to grant the land admeasuring Acre-1, Gunthas-20 of Block No.482 paiki as per the grant of government waste land to the persons according to mutation entry no.2494, 2575, 2579 and 2580 in the revenue records of land of Block No.482 of Moje: Bopal of Taluka: Daskroi, wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court by judgment dated 14/12/2016, directed the applicant / petitioner to make application afresh in this office within 15 days from the date of judgment and to decide the said application within six weeks after hearing the applicant/petitioner in-person. The applicant / petitioner was heard in-person on 17/01/2017 in this office pursuant to his application dated 31/12/2016. He has submitted his written reply during hearing-in-person. Upon verification with the revenue records in context with the written reply of the applicant / petitioner, it is found that land bearing Block No.482 of Moje: Bopal, Taluka: Daskroi is allotted from the land admeasuring Acre-5, Gunthas-37 of original Old Survey No.358 and accordingly, Block No.482 is recorded in 7/12. Upon verifying from the entries of village form no.6 and from village form no.7/12 of the revenue records of original old survey no.358, the land was standing in the name of Jividar Samasta through the Hon'ble Government as occupier of the land of Survey No.358 as per 7/12 of the year 1929-30. As per the records (Phanipatrak) of the land in question, different persons were cultivating the said land at the relevant time and therefore, there names were mentioned in Phanipatrak as they were cultivating the land on one year grant. It appears from the records that the applicant / petitioner was not holding the possession of the land of Old Survey No.358 paiki i.e. Block No.482 at the relevant time. As per mutation entry no.2022 dated 13/08/1956 of the record, the survey numbers standing in the name of Jividar Samasta through Hon'ble Government of Mumbai were ordered to be recorded as government wasteland, which includes land of original old survey no.358. Thus, the land in question was originally belonged to the government. Out of the persons, who were cultivating the said land on one year grant, four different persons were ordered to grant the lands by way of permanent ownership basis on new and indivisible tenure by the Order of the City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad and the entries for the same were made in the records by Mutation Entry No.2494 dated 05/08/1974 to Mr. Ganpatji Becharji for land admeasuring Acre-1, Gunthas-20 of Survey No.358 paiki, Mutation Entry No.2575 dated 07/11/1977 to Mr. Elevanji Chhaganji Thakore for land admeasuring Acre-1, Gunthas-22 of Survey No.358 paiki, Mutation Entry No.2579 dated 07/11/1977 to Mr. Pathaji Shanaji Thakore for land admeasuring Acre-0, Gunthas-30 of Survey No.358 paiki and Mutation Entry No.2580 dated 07/11/1977 to Mr. Shivaji Hemaji for land admeasuring Acre- 0, Gunthas-25 of Survey No.358 paiki. Elevanji Chhaganji Thakore for land admeasuring Acre-1, Gunthas-22 of Survey No.358 paiki, Mutation Entry No.2579 dated 07/11/1977 to Mr. Pathaji Shanaji Thakore for land admeasuring Acre-0, Gunthas-30 of Survey No.358 paiki and Mutation Entry No.2580 dated 07/11/1977 to Mr. Shivaji Hemaji for land admeasuring Acre- 0, Gunthas-25 of Survey No.358 paiki. And land admeasuring Acre-1, Gunthas-20 of old Survey No.358 paiki was standing as government waste land in the records of 7/12. Thereafter, land admeasuring Acre-1, Gunthas-20 was recorded as government waste land in the records of 7/12 of Block No.482 after consolidation. The land was allotted to the persons, who were cultivating the said land on one year lease. As per the contention made by the applicant / petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat regarding the land in question, the fact that he was holding possession since year - 1940, does not appear clear upon verification of the available records. Therefore, the contention of the petition doesn't appear to be acceptable. The Government waste-land admeasuring A. 1-20 guntha, block no.482 paiki is in the name of Government as possessor as per land record. It appears from the record of 7/12 that the applicant has encroached the aforesaid government waste-land from the year 1991-92. On __/07/2004, the applicant/ petitioner had requested to grant the disputed land admeasuring A.1 20 guntha, paiki block no.482 as a right of cultivator. The applicant has stated in the application that he has been cultivating the aforesaid land since 1991-92. The applicant has clearly stated that he has been engaged in agriculture activity at the disputed land without permission since 1991-92 in unauthorized way. Therefore, his demand is not appropriate. The applicant has demanded the land as old tenure by cultivating at the government waste-land without permission. The demand is not consistent with the provisions of standing orders of the Government. As per the provision of Government resolution dated 15/02/89, Government waste-land can be disposed of through Land office only. Moreover, as per the provisions of the resolution, if the part of the government waste-land was being cultivated on one year lease or a period of three years or more before 01/03/1960, then the said person can be allotted the land permanently upto affordable limit if he does not fall in priority. The applicant has unlawfully encroached the disputed Government waste-land. The applicant has unlawfully encroached the disputed Government waste-land. Therefore, applicant’s demand is not appearing consistent with the provision of Government resolution dated 15/02/89. The applicant has requested to grant the land as per old tenure according to the Government resolution dated 22/01/2015 but the said resolution is about adopting a certain process to determine the tenure of land under Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952. The applicant has requested to grant the disputed land as per the provisions of the aforesaid resolution. The Government resolution dated 22/01/2015 is about adopting a certain process to determine the tenure of the land having ownership as Personal Inams. Applicant’s demand is not consistent with the provision of the aforesaid resolution. Thus, as described above, the disputed land admeasuring 1 acre 20 guntha out of Block no. 482, means 0 Hector 60-70 sq.m. (out of old Survey no. 358) as per the Land Revenue Records, is the government waste-land since 1929-30. The persons who were cultivating the land on one-year grant basis in accordance with the government resolution dated 01/03/1960 have been granted lands out of the stated land on the new and indivisible tenure basis vide the order of City Deputy Collector under the provisions of government resolution. The entries thereof, have been made in the revenue record and certified. The applicant has demanded the land out of non-granted wasteland on old tenure basis which was possessed by him illegally without any approval since 1991-92. The fact that the applicant was in possession of the land since 1940 is not found clear on the basis of Revenue Records. Also, the applicant's representation seems to be in contradiction with the records. As per the development map of the urban development area, the government waste-land which has been demanded has been included in the T.P. Scheme at present and final plots have been allotted. As the land has been included in the urban area, it cannot be considered as an agricultural land. As the stated land is located to the urbanized area of Ahmedabad, it is a valuable land located at a prime location which should be kept reserved for future use by the government. The applicant's demand, being in contradiction of the prevailing government resolutions, appears to be non-acceptable. Therefore, an order is passed as under. ORDER The T.P. Scheme is applicable to the land at Block no. The applicant's demand, being in contradiction of the prevailing government resolutions, appears to be non-acceptable. Therefore, an order is passed as under. ORDER The T.P. Scheme is applicable to the land at Block no. 482/ A/4 located at Bopal, Taluka- Daskroi, admeasuring 0 Hector 60-70 sq.m. As it is located at a prime location, it should be kept reserved for government use. The applicant's demand, being non-acceptable, is rejected. If the applicant has any grievance with regard to this decision, he may file an appeal within 60 (sixty) days of the order before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeal). Sd/- (Avantika Singh) District Collector, Ahmedabad. Certified for dispatch SD/- (illegible) Chitnis to Collector Ahmedabad” 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the Writ Petitioner - Sursangji Dholaji Thakor again approached this Court directly which Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.4550 of 2017 again came to be allowed by the said learned Single Judge (Coram : Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.), with the following observations : “17. At the first instance, this Court may deal with the preliminary objection raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 18. The order of the Collector that is impugned in the petition is a result of the judgment of this Court dated 14.12.2016, whereby, the Collector had been directed to pass an order, keeping in mind certain observations made by the Court in the said judgment. The case of the petitioner is that the Collector, while passing the order, has over-reached the observations made by the Court and has recorded contrary findings, therefore, the petition came to be filed before the Court. Under such circumstances, it is preposterous to think that the judgment of this Court would be under the further scrutiny of the SSRD, as indirectly suggested by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. The order of the Collector is not an outcome of any statutory appeal where the alternative remedy is provided for, therefore, the submission advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is rejected outright. 19. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has read, meticulously, the order of the Collector and the findings recorded therein. He has laid stress on those very findings that are contrary to the observations recorded by this Court in the judgment dated 14.12.2016, and has asserted that these are his submissions. 20. 19. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has read, meticulously, the order of the Collector and the findings recorded therein. He has laid stress on those very findings that are contrary to the observations recorded by this Court in the judgment dated 14.12.2016, and has asserted that these are his submissions. 20. It may not be overlooked that the judgment dated 14.12.2016, has attained finality as it has not been challenged by the respondents. The respondents therefore, especially, the Collector, could not have recorded findings contrary to the observations contained in the said judgment. That is exactly what has been done in the impugned order. It is almost as though the Collector has sat in appeal over the judgment of this Court and overruled those portions that were not to her liking. Even certain aspects of the previous order of the SSRD, which now no longer exist, have been deviated from by the Collector; meaning thereby, that the Collector has taken a new stand and taken out new grounds that never existed in the previous orders of the Collector or SSRD. Had it been a case where the Court had not made any observations, there would have been nothing more to say. However, when the Collector has been specifically directed to pass the order keeping in mind the observations made by the Court and contrary findings have been recorded, it clearly reveals that the Collector has deliberately disregarded the observations made by this Court, which is an act bordering upon contempt. 21. To make matter worse, the stand of the State Government before the Court is equally defiant and supportive of the near contemptuous action of the Collector, who has indirectly overruled the observations and findings of this Court contained in the judgment dated 14.12.2016. In addition, a submission is made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that he is bound to defend the action of the Collector. That may be so. However, insofar as the order of the Court and its binding nature is concerned, as an officer of the Court, such a stand was not expected. 22. Insofar as the aspect of the possession of the petitioner over the land in question is concerned, this Court cannot have anything further to say because findings based on material on record have already been recorded in the judgment, which need not be reiterated at this stage. 23. 22. Insofar as the aspect of the possession of the petitioner over the land in question is concerned, this Court cannot have anything further to say because findings based on material on record have already been recorded in the judgment, which need not be reiterated at this stage. 23. Insofar as the aspect of discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner is concerned, the Collector has stated in the impugned order that the other persons who were granted land on a permanent basis were in possession thereof prior to 1960. The Collector has not taken into consideration the Panchnama drawn by the Talaticum- Mantri, Bopal, which clearly establishes that the petitioner has been in possession of the land since 1940, though this Panchnama was produced by the petitioner before the Collector. 24. The aspect that the petitioner is similarly situated to those persons who were allotted land from the same Block is established, and to meted out discriminatory treatment to the petitioner would amount to the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which aspect has already been recorded by the Court in the judgment dated 14.12.2016. 25. Taking into consideration all the above aspects and for the aforestated reasons and those recorded in the judgment dated 14.12.2016, passed in Special Civil Application No.13910 of 2013, this Court considers it appropriate to pass the following order: (i) The impugned order dated 23.01.2017, passed by respondent No.2 – Collector, Ahmedabad, is hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) Respondent No.2 is directed to pass an appropriate order in respect of the application dated 31.12.2016 made by the petitioner, in accordance with the orders passed in the cases of similarly situated persons who have been granted land on a permanent ownership basis out of Block No.482, and also by considering the policy of the State Government as well as the aspect that the petitioner is ready to pay premium as per the existing policy. (iii) The needful be done as expeditiously as possible but not later than a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. 26. The petition is allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. There shall be no orders as to costs. Sd/- (SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.)” 5. Aggrieved by the said order of learned Single Judge, the State is in Appeal before us. 6. Mr. 26. The petition is allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. There shall be no orders as to costs. Sd/- (SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.)” 5. Aggrieved by the said order of learned Single Judge, the State is in Appeal before us. 6. Mr. K M Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, urged before us that the Respondent was not in the cultivatory possession of the land in question for long period since 1940, as claimed by him and the District Collector had examined the entire Revenue Records for a long period from 1929-30 and Village Form No.7/12 for the said Survey No.358 and found that the Report given by Talati about his alleged long possession from 1940 for 73 years was a Report given on the basis of the statement made by the Respondent himself, without any corroborative evidence or Revenue Record to support his claim for cultivatory possession for long period. He submitted that in pursuance of the direction of this Court, the said Talati – Mr.Nikul Manibhai Chaudhary is present with the relevant record in his office while this case is being heard through Video Conference and he has filed his Affidavit as directed by the Court dated 14.6.2021 to explain the said fact as to how the said Panchnama Report (undated) (Page-45A of the Paper-book) was prepared in which the alleged possession of the Respondent - Sursangji Dholaji Thakor was mentioned as ‘1940 thee 73) in the said Report on the basis of oral averments made by the Respondent himself. Paragraph Nos.5 to 7 of the said Affidavit dated 14.6.2021 are quoted below for ready reference : “5. I further say and submit that it was incumbent upon not only me but almost Talatis of all the villages personally who were directed to carry out such exercise and such panchnamas are prepared by all the Talatis in view of the instructions issued by the Mamlatdar office. 6. I say and submit that the proformas of panchnama were also provided by the office of the Mamlatdar pursuant to which the exercise of physical inspection of the Government land was carried out by me and on physical verification of such Government land, the panchnama which is referred to by the opponent herein was prepared by me during the said period as per the statement of the panchas. 7. 7. I say and submit that on physical verification of the land on a particular date i.e. 1.10.2013 when I had visited the parcel of land, the panchas present there had declared before me that the part of the land bearing survey No.482a was possessed by the opponent and on the basis of the same the panchnama was prepared by me. Further during the course of physical verification, the opponent stated before me that he is in possession of the land since 73 years. It is during this exercise of physical verification the panchnama was prepared and the statement was recorded and the same was forwarded to the office of the Mamlatdar as directed. I further state that I had only recorded the statement and panchnama which was neither in the nature of any certificate issued by me nor can I have any knowledge of the possession of the opponent since 73 years which may kindly be considered.” 7. Mr. K M Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the District Collector, after detailed inquiry, had passed the said order on 23.1.2017 again rejecting the application of the Respondent inasmuch as he did not fulfill the basic criteria of the policy decision dated 1.3.1960, which, inter-alia, required that the Applicant, to have minimum 3 years cultivatory possession prior to 1.3.1960, which the Applicant did not fulfill, as his claim of the possession since 1940 was not supported in revenue record and entry. 8. Mr. K M Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, also submitted that there was no case of discrimination hit by Article 14 as was sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the Respondent inasmuch as the other 4 persons named above, were given the land in question on annual basis by the concerned revenue authorities from year to year and were in possession for long periods in the said Survey No.358, whose details are given in the order of the District Collector, as quoted above. He also submitted that other claim made by the Respondent – landholder that he was in unauthorized possession of the land in question from the year 1991-92 and, therefore, considering the same as long possession, he should be allotted the said land, is also incorrect because the policy of the State dated 1.3.1960 required him to be in cultivatory possession of the land in question, at least for 3 or more number of years before 1.3.1960. Therefore, such applicant cannot claim any equity on the basis of his unauthorized possession from the year 1991-92, which is totally irrelevant for the policy decision dated 1.3.1960. 9. On the other hand, Mr.Anshin Desai, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.Manav Mehta, learned counsel for the Respondent, submitted that learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petition on both the occasions vide order dated 14.12.2016 in Special Civil Application No.13190 of 2013 and again by the order impugned in the present Appeal passed on 30.3.2017 in Special Civil Application No.4550 of 2017. He submitted that the Panchnama Report on Page 45A of the Paper-book clearly shows that said Panchnama was prepared in the presence of two witnesses which clearly established that the Respondent was in possession for 73 years from 1940 when the said Report was prepared in the year 2013. He submitted that though the Panchnama Report does not bear any specific date but while issuing certificied copy of the same by Mamlatdar shows the date of 15.2.2014 and the Talati in his Affidavit recently filed dated 14.6.2021 also does not dispute this position that such a Report was prepared by him on 1.10.2013. Therefore, the document of the contemporary period should be relied upon by this Court. He also submitted that other 4 persons on the same Survey No.358 were allotted such land under the same policy decision dated 1.3.1960 and, therefore, Writ Petitioner (Respondent in this Appeal) cannot be discriminated, again. 10. Therefore, the document of the contemporary period should be relied upon by this Court. He also submitted that other 4 persons on the same Survey No.358 were allotted such land under the same policy decision dated 1.3.1960 and, therefore, Writ Petitioner (Respondent in this Appeal) cannot be discriminated, again. 10. Mr.Anshin Desai, learned Senior Counsel, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of A. P. and Another v. Maharshi Publishers Pvt. Ltd. And Others, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 95 and the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Patel Parshottamdas Chaturbhai and Others v. Harijan Shakarbhai Lakhabhai and Others, reported in 1978 GLR 341 to buttress his arguments on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution. He submitted that the District Collector has given his finding contrary to the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered in first round of litigation on 14.12.2016 in Special Civil Application No.13190 of 2013 and, therefore, on the same grounds, the District Collector could not have taken a different view and denied the allotment to the Respondent herein. 11. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are satisfied that the present Appeal filed by the State of Gujarat deserves to be allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge under Appeal deserves to be set aside. The reasons are as follows : 12. The sheet-anchor of the claim of the Respondent of long cultivatory possession on the land in question in Survey No.358 is the Panchnama Report of Talati, Bopal (Mr.Nikul Manibhai Chaudhary), who purportedly gave such Panchnama Report (Page 45A of the Paper-book) in his favour mentioning that Respondent was in cultivatory possession of the land in Block No.482 (Survey No.358) during 1940 thee 73 years. Firstly, the said Report is not even dated and secondly, the said one page Report is only incomplete Report as the Talati (Mr.Nikul Manibhai Chaudhary) has explained in his Affidavit dated 14.6.2021 annexing therewith a similar Proforma Report in such cases which runs into 4 pages and which includes two separate Proformas of Sarkari Jamin Register (Government Land Register) and Mulakat Samay Sthithi (Situation at the time of Visit) (Page-209 and 210 of the Paper-book). Then, Panchnama on that basis is prepared in two pages (Page-211 and 212 along with the said Affidavit produced at Annexure-R1). Then, Panchnama on that basis is prepared in two pages (Page-211 and 212 along with the said Affidavit produced at Annexure-R1). The first two papers indicates that the entries made in the Government records about the actual physical verification carried out from time to time to ascertain the cultivatory possession of the persons concerned by the revenue authorities like Talati in the present case. The said Proforma produced now before this Court, in one of the columns, contains a remarks column which records the findings at the time of physical verification. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in the Affidavit, he has clearly stated in Para.7 quoted above that the said Entry of 73 years was made on the basis of opponent’s own statement without any verification which was recorded as per his Panchas’ statement and forwarded to the office of Mamlatdar in discharge of his duty. Therefore, except this document, there is no evidence worth the name to show the long cultivatory possession of the Respondent prior to 1.3.1960. 13. In fact, the alternative claim made by the Respondent before the District Collector that he was in unauthorized occupation of the land in question from 1991-92, is contradictory. If the Respondent had cultivatory possession from 1940 truthfully, then there was no occasion to claim his unauthorized occupancy of the said land from 1991-92. We have no hesitation to reject the said contention that even on the basis of unauthorized possession of the land in question from 1991-92, the Respondent could claim any equity or right of allotment. Firstly, because the Policy dated 1.3.1960 was clearly not applicable on the basis of his possession from the year 1991-92 even if it is assumed to be true while not accepting this and secondly, the person in unauthorized possession cannot claim any equity. 14. The Court cannot put a premium by perpetuating the illegality. The Panchnama (Page-45A) relied upon by the Respondent is the document which does not inspire any confidence at all. The averments made of cultivatory possession in the said Panchnama Report from 1940 thee 73 were the words ‘73’ which are written little upward on the line said Document. 14. The Court cannot put a premium by perpetuating the illegality. The Panchnama (Page-45A) relied upon by the Respondent is the document which does not inspire any confidence at all. The averments made of cultivatory possession in the said Panchnama Report from 1940 thee 73 were the words ‘73’ which are written little upward on the line said Document. Even if it is assumed to be not an interpolation, it does not amount to any admissible evidence because the same has been controverted by the same person (Mr.Nikul Manibhai Chaudhary), the then Talati, Bopal in the year 2013 by the present Affidavit dated 14.6.2021 filed in this Court, in which in Para.7, he clearly states as quoted above that the said averment was filled up on the basis of the statement made by the applicant - Sursangji Dholaji Thakor himself. The record is otherwise. The record does not contain any mention of his name from the year 1940. 15. Therefore, obviously, the Respondent was well out of ambit and scope of the Policy dated 1.3.1960 issued by the State Government, which, too to its relevant extract is quoted from Page-187 and 188 of the Paper-book as produced at Annexure-R2. OTHER LANGUAGE English Translation : “Disposal of Waste-land Government of Mumbai Revenue Department Resolution No.L.N.D. 3960-A-1 Secretariat, Mumbai. Date: 01st March, 1960 RESOLUTION Disposal of waste-land is done as per the Orders issued by Government Resolution No.L.N.D. 3953-V-B dated 20th August, 1954 of the Revenue Department, amended from time to time. However practically, permanent disposal cannot be happened on the large scale due to following four restrictions: (1) Restriction due to Land Use Survey Scheme, (2) Restriction due to the rehabilitation projects of the persons affected by several Irrigation and Electricity Project Works, (3) Restriction due to Forest Settlement, (4) Restrictions due to Forest Expansion Projects including project to prevent increase in Kutch Desert. Now, it has been decided by the government that all the restrictions, except of Sr. No.2, to be removed and to undertake permanent disposal of the government waste-land including government waste-lands granted on lease from time to time, as per the order mentioned in this resolution and the list of instructions annexed with this resolution. This order supersedes, all the existing orders regularizing the permanent disposal of the government waste-land for agriculture. No.2, to be removed and to undertake permanent disposal of the government waste-land including government waste-lands granted on lease from time to time, as per the order mentioned in this resolution and the list of instructions annexed with this resolution. This order supersedes, all the existing orders regularizing the permanent disposal of the government waste-land for agriculture. However, these orders will be not applicable to the districts to which the restriction mentioned at Sr.No.2 applies. (2) To which land will these orders apply? All the collectors, shall have to prepare list of such government waste-lands, which can be disposed of on permanent basis. It should be done according to the instructions printed as annexure to this resolution. These orders, shall be applicable to all the lands included in the final list referred in Para-1 of the aforesaid instructions. (3) Disposal of all government waste-lands included in the final list except of pieces of land and shapeless lands, shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Para-11 below. 3(A) Priority to allot land in area other than Scheduled Area: (1) Existing one year leaseholders of the government waste-lands including co-operative societies who have cultivated the land for consecutive three years or more before the issuance of these orders.” 16. We are also not satisfied about the contention raised on the anvil of Article 14 by Mr.Anshin Desai, learned Senior Counsel. The other 4 persons, who were allotted the land in question as narrated by the District Collector in his order dated 23.1.2017, clearly distinguishes their case from the present Respondent. They were cultivating the land in question on annual leases given by the revenue authorities from time to time and, therefore, their cultivatory possession was duly proved and their case fell within ambit and scope of Policy decision dated 1.3.1960. Therefore, the allotment in their favour cannot be claimed as the basis of the Respondent’s claim, whose similar annual allotment of land to cultivate land is neither alleged nor claimed much less established with the evidence. The only Document relied upon by the Respondent for that purpose is the Report of the Talati, Bopal (Page-45A) which is half truth and self-serving averment which is incorporated in the Panchnama Report by the Talati, Bopal at the time of physical survey of the land in question. 17. The only Document relied upon by the Respondent for that purpose is the Report of the Talati, Bopal (Page-45A) which is half truth and self-serving averment which is incorporated in the Panchnama Report by the Talati, Bopal at the time of physical survey of the land in question. 17. The Case Laws cited by the learned counsel for the Respondent, therefore, cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharshi Publishers Pvt. Ltd (Supra) was concerned with the allottees, who were not given possession of the land in question, though they satisfied all the conditions including payment of full amount due etc. on account of Zoning regulation, allowed the respondents’ allotment and directed the State to give them the possession. Nothing of this sort of scenario is available in the present case. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case at all. 19. The other judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court relied upon by Mr.Anshin Desai, learned Senior Counsel in the case of Patel Parshottamdas Chaturbhai and Others (Supra) is also distinguishable. The said judgment was based on Section 62 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, in which the provision is made for grant of Government Waste Land and the Court in the peculiar facts held that it is not obligatory that the land should be sold by auction and the Government can grant such land in pursuance to its policy decision. Again, there is no such dispute before us. The question before us is whether the Respondent satisfied the criteria of the Policy decision dated 1.3.1960 at all or not. 20. We clearly find that the Respondent did not satisfy the criteria of Policy Decision dated 1.3.1960 and, therefore, the District Court, in our opinion, was perfectly justified in rejecting the application vide order dated 23.1.2017. 21. The learned Single Judge, with great respects, in our opinion, has erred in allowing the claim of the Respondent on the anvil of Article 14 and the aforesaid Report of Talati, Bopal treating his long cultivatory possession from 1940, which Report was not a statement of fact supported by revenue records but, a self-serving averment of the Respondent which was unfortunately treated as gospel truth by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are convinced that the present Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State deserves to be allowed. The same is accordingly allowed and the order of learned Single Judge dated 30.6.2017 is set aside, with no order as to costs.