Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1669 (GUJ)

Minaxi Rameshbhai Bhasin v. State Of Gujarat

2022-11-30

SANGEETA K.VISHEN

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. By this petition, inter alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.11.2015 passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. the Collector (hereinafter referred to as “the Collector”) directing the respondent no.3 i.e. the Mamlatdar, to take over the possession of the land free from all encumbrances. 2. Tersely stated are the facts: 2.1 The father of the petitioner, was serving as an army man. An application dated 1.3.1965, was made by the father of the petitioner for allotment of the land bearing survey no.247 (new survey no.149/1/A/2 paiki) admeasuring Acre-55 32-gunthas situated at village Vesu, Taluka: Choryasi, District: Surat. After following the procedure and as per the policy, vide order dated 26.10.1966, the salted land came to be allotted on lease for the unlimited period. With the help of the family members, the land was made fertile and cultivable. As per the policies of the State Government, since it was impermissible to allot the land, more than the economic holdings, that revised order dated 7.1.1967 came to be passed allotting the land admeasuring 16 acres of revenue survey no.247 situated at village Vesu, Taluka: Choryasi, District: Surat (hereinafter referred to as “land in question”) for agricultural/cultivation purpose. According to the petitioner, the order contained various terms and conditions, inter alia, that rent would not be charged for the first 10 years. It further contained that after completion of 30 years, land revenue will be charged on the prevalent rates on the said reclaimed land by treating as if it is a land survey settlement. 2.2 The father of the petitioner, with the help of other family members, reclaimed the land in question and was in uninterrupted and continuous possession for almost more than 50 years.The names of the petitioner along with other heirs, were also recorded in the revenue record. It is the case of the petitioner that she had also paid the revenue and municipal taxes with respect to the land in question from time to time. 2.3 Somewhere in the year 2002, the petitioner made an application to the Mamlatdar with a request to enter the name of the petitioner after determining the assessment. The petitioner and other family members, showed their willingness to pay the same. 2.3 Somewhere in the year 2002, the petitioner made an application to the Mamlatdar with a request to enter the name of the petitioner after determining the assessment. The petitioner and other family members, showed their willingness to pay the same. It was the specific case of the petitioner and family members that they are cultivating the land in question and were earning their livelihood with no other source of income. The application for deciding the assessment, was only with a view to seeing that the petitioner and other family members, can avail of the loan facilities for purchasing the land equipment and for developing the same more efficiently. 2.4 Somewhere in the month of February 2003, panchkyas and inspection was carried out, recording that the land in question has been reclaimed and the crops namely; sugarcane and sorghum are standing. On the basis of the inspection and the panchkyas, Mamlatdar submitted a report dated 21.3.2003, recommending the Collector to fix the assessment of the land in question, after obtaining necessary opinion from the Office of District Inspector of Land Records who, in turn, submitted a report dated 11.8.2003, determining the assessment at Rs.82.40 paisa. 2.5 Followed, was the order dated 8.9.2003 by the Deputy Collector which was passed after taking into account the report of the Mamlatdar and the District Inspector of Land Records confirming that the land in question, is reclaimed which, led to the determination of the assessment. The land in question, was assigned new survey no.149 admeasuring 64,752 sq. mtrs. Conditions were attached to the effect that the land in question, would be of the restricted tenure and shall continue as it is and shall not be transferred without prior permission. 2.6 Apropos the order dated 8.9.2003, on 3.12.2004, the petitioner, made an application to the Deputy Collector, seeking conversion of the land in question from restricted tenure to old tenure, pointing out that the petitioner and other family members have reclaimed the land in question and have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession and occupation since last 38 years. It was also pointed out that the petitioner, has strictly adhered to the conditions stipulated by the respondent authorities and that there is no breach of conditions committed by the petitioner and other family members. It was also pointed out that the petitioner, has strictly adhered to the conditions stipulated by the respondent authorities and that there is no breach of conditions committed by the petitioner and other family members. The file, was moved, inter- departmentally and intra-departmentally and ultimately, on 29.10.2005, the Collector, stated that since the valuation of the land, is more than Rs.50 Lacs, approval of the State Level Valuation Committee would be required for getting appropriate permission from the State Government. The petitioner, received a communication dated 16.2.2006 of the learned Collector, informing her that the land in question, was granted on a lease for a period of 30 years, such land, cannot be granted on permanent basis and therefore, the proposal has not been accepted by the State Government. It was informed that the application of the petitioner dated 3.12.2004 for grant of land on permanent basis has been refused. 2.7 Again, the petitioner, made an application on 16.3.2006 reiterating the request for allotment. The said application, was rejected by the Collector vide communication dated 14.9.2006 on the ground that the land in question, was granted under the provisions of Rule 40 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1972”) for making it fertile which, cannot be granted on a permanent basis. The request, came to be turned down. On 22.9.2006, the petitioner, made an application to the State Government, pointing out about the possession of hers and the family members and also for allotment of the land in question permanently citing a case of a similarly situated applicant so also the orders passed thereon. 2.8 Subsequent thereto, a show cause notice dated 30.4.2007 was issued by the Mamlatdar for breach of conditions; however, the Deputy Collector vide order dated 17.2.2009 dropped the notice noting that there is no breach of condition. The petitioner submitted an application dated 12.8.2015 seeking regrant of the land as per conditions 3 and 6 of the allotment order which, came to be rejected vide order dated 27.11.2015 by the Collector, Surat and the Mamlatdar was directed to take the possession of the land. Hence the present petition. 3. The petitioner submitted an application dated 12.8.2015 seeking regrant of the land as per conditions 3 and 6 of the allotment order which, came to be rejected vide order dated 27.11.2015 by the Collector, Surat and the Mamlatdar was directed to take the possession of the land. Hence the present petition. 3. Mr Mihir Thakor, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms Archana Acharya, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that an application was made by the father of the petitioner for allotment of the land which, initially was 55 acres and subsequently, came to be reduced to 16 acres of land in question for reclamation. It is submitted that various terms and conditions were incorporated. Relevant for the present purpose would be condition nos.1, 2 and 3. Condition 1, provides that no rent will be charged for first 10 years; condition 2 provides that rent at Rs.7.25 paisa per hector shall be levied for the first 30 years on the whole area leased, whether reclaimed or not; condition 3 provides that after expiry of 30 years, the lease shall be continued; in case of reclaimed lands at the rate at which they would be assessed for land revenue from time to time, subject to survey settlement and in the case of un-reclaimed land, if any, at the average rate of reclaimed lands. It is further submitted that condition 6, provides for conversion of land to non-agricultural, meaning thereby conversion is feasible, followed by condition 7 which provides for Kabulat in Form G-2 of the Rules of 1972. 3.1 While referring to Form G-2, it is submitted that the form specifically provides for a term of 999 years and therefore, the land has been allotted for, unlimited period and the only condition which, the allottee is obliged to observe is that it should be reclaimed. It is submitted that upon expiry of the period of 30 years in the year 1997 for the land in question, revenue became payable with effect from 7.1.1997. It is therefore submitted that lease deed though refers to the commencement, it does not refer to period of expiry of the lease. 3.2 It is further submitted that father of the petitioner expired on 29.8.1997 and the heirs, were brought on the record which fact, has been recorded in the order dated 27.11.2015 passed by the Collector. It is therefore submitted that lease deed though refers to the commencement, it does not refer to period of expiry of the lease. 3.2 It is further submitted that father of the petitioner expired on 29.8.1997 and the heirs, were brought on the record which fact, has been recorded in the order dated 27.11.2015 passed by the Collector. The petitioners have been paying the property taxes and other revenues to the authorities concerned. 3.3 It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner, submitted an application dated 20.12.2002 requesting to fix the assessment showing their willingness to pay the assessment for the land in question. Apropos which, the report was prepared by the Deputy Collector, panchnama was drawn clearly reflecting the crops of sugarcane and sorghum standing. It is submitted that the District Inspector of Land Records, was requested to determine the assessment for the purpose of payment of revenue and it fixed the assessment of the land in question at Rs.82.40 paisa. After considering the proposals and the reports that the Deputy Collector, passed an order dated 8.9.2003 determining the assessment. The land, was directed to be continued to be of new and impartible tenure. Condition 3, provided that if the applicant applies for allotment of the land by paying the occupancy price, the same shall be decided as per the prevailing policy. 3.4 It is next submitted that after the land was assessed, application was made by the petitioner and other family members requesting for allotment of the land on permanent basis; however, since the value of the land was more than 50 lacs, a proposal was sent to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department and this was the point, when the problem triggered. It is submitted that the Collector, was of the opinion that lease period was of 30 years, in fact, lease was never for 30 years and the only requirement was that for said 30 years, no land revenue would be charged. Which aspect stands cleared by Rule 40 of the Rules of 1972. It is submitted that the application came to be rejected by the Revenue Department considering 30 years as a lease period. It is submitted that considering the provisions of Rules of 1972 and more particularly Rule 40 read with Form G-2, it does not limit the lease to 30 years. It is submitted that the application came to be rejected by the Revenue Department considering 30 years as a lease period. It is submitted that considering the provisions of Rules of 1972 and more particularly Rule 40 read with Form G-2, it does not limit the lease to 30 years. It is submitted that the State Government, while rejecting the application, has been of the opinion that there is no provision of allotting the land on permanent basis and that the land, was allotted for reclamation for a period of 30 years. The said decision was conveyed by the Collector vide communication dated 16.2.2006. 3.5 It is next submitted that the mother of the petitioner made an application dated 22.9.2006 to the Hon’ble Minister (Revenue) pointing out that all the family members had made the land reclaimable. It also pointed out that in similarly situated case, the land, has been allotted on permanent basis, by passing the order in the year 2000 and 2007. In the interregnum, another application was made by the petitioner with a request for allotting the land permanently; however, the State Government rejected the request vide communication dated 14.8.2006 which, in turn, was communicated by the Collector vide letter dated 14.9.2006. 3.6 It is submitted that in the interregnum, proceedings for breach of conditions were initiated and after full fledged inquiry, notice was dropped by passing a detailed order dated 17.2.2009. Therefore, it clearly established that there was no breach of condition by the petitioner. 3.7 It is therefore submitted that the land, was allotted without any limitation and the understanding on the part of the respondent authorities that the lease was for a period of 30 years, is erroneous. It is submitted that it is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not committed any breach yet, the Collector directed the Mamlatdar to take the possession. In fact, the order itself permits for conversion from new tenure to old tenure and therefore, rejection of the application by the Collector under the impression that the lease was for a period of 30 years, is unsustainable under law. Also, the land has been granted by virtue of Rule 40 read with Form G-2 coupled with the fact that the petitioner has not committed any breach. Also, the land has been granted by virtue of Rule 40 read with Form G-2 coupled with the fact that the petitioner has not committed any breach. In fact, petitioners have fulfilled the condition of making the land reclaimable and therefore, the order directing taking of the possession is ex facie bad. 3.8 It is submitted that so far as prayer 7(C) seeking direction to respondent no.2 to grant the land in question to the petitioner on permanent basis, after conversion of the land to old tenure, has not been pressed and deleted. Therefore, no submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Ms Asmita Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader inviting the attention of this Court to the order dated 29.10.2005 passed by the Collector, submitted that clearly the application of the petitioner was for allotment of the land on the ownership basis and therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is not the owner of the land. 4.1 It is further submitted that in fact, the Collector, in its opinion dated 29.10.2005, had made a reference to the Government Resolution dated 16.3.1982 apropos which, a letter was addressed to the State Government in its Revenue Department and the Revenue Department, while responding to the same, vide communication dated 27.1.2006, clarified that the reliance placed on the Government Resolution dated 16.3.1982 is misplaced. The land, has been given to the petitioner on lease and upon expiry of the period of 30 years, proceedings have been initiated. Apart from this, twice the orders were passed rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of land on permanent basis; however, those orders have remained unchallenged. In absence of any challenge to the said orders, it would be impermissible for the petitioner to request for allotment of the land. 4.2 In fact, a communication was addressed to the petitioner wherein, it has been made clear that the petitioner has been informed repeatedly about rejection of the application and that nothing is required to be done at the end of office of the Collector. The petitioner, again in the year 2015, had made an application for the very same purpose; without pointing out that on the basis of which policy and Government Resolution, the petitioner and others are seeking allotment of the land in question on permanent basis. The petitioner, again in the year 2015, had made an application for the very same purpose; without pointing out that on the basis of which policy and Government Resolution, the petitioner and others are seeking allotment of the land in question on permanent basis. It is submitted that the issue is not of 30 years but is of seeking the land on permanent basis as owner which, would be impermissible as the land was allotted to them on lease basis. Proceedings were initiated which led to the passing of the order dated 27.11.2015 which, is a detailed order rejecting the request of the petitioner and considering the lease period, it has been directed that the land, be vested in the State Government and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr Mihir Thakor, learned senior counsel in a brief rejoinder submitted that the allotment, has been made under the provisions of section 37 read with sections 60 and 68 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”); further read with Rule 40 of the Rules of 1972 which, is under chapter VII which deals with the grants of a restricted tenure or of a long term tenure. It is submitted that when the Rule itself provides for 999 years of lease without any limitation, the understanding on the part of the revenue authorities that the lease was of 30 years and got expired in the year 1997 and therefore, no further extension can be granted, is fallacious and against the provisions of the Rules of 1972. In fact, the proceedings were initiated for breach of condition and when it is found that there was no breach, the petitioner could not be dispossessed and therefore, the order of the Collector, deserves interference and petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 7. With a view to avoid repetition, the facts are briefly narrated here. The land in question, was allotted to the father of the petitioner in the year 1966 which, was revised in the year 1967 and finally, land admeasuring 16 acres, that is, the land in question came to be allotted on certain terms and conditions. 7. With a view to avoid repetition, the facts are briefly narrated here. The land in question, was allotted to the father of the petitioner in the year 1966 which, was revised in the year 1967 and finally, land admeasuring 16 acres, that is, the land in question came to be allotted on certain terms and conditions. In the year 1997, the original allottee expired and the names of his heirs including the petitioner being a daughter, came to be posted in the revenue record and since then, it is the case of the petitioner and other family members that they are cultivating the land in question. Moreover, the petitioner and other family members have been paying revenue and municipal taxes with respect to the land in question. 8. An application dated 20.12.2002 was made to the Mamlatdar, Chauryasi Prant, inter alia, requesting to assess the land and also to transfer it in the name of the petitioner and other heirs. Inspection was carried out and on the basis whereof, a report was prepared. As per the said report of the Deputy Collector, Chauryasi Prant, crop of sugarcane and sorghum was standing on the land in question. The Collector, Surat, passed an order on file requiring the District Inspector of Land Records to assess the land and to give opinion as well. The Deputy Collector, Chauryasi Prant, accordingly, requested the District Inspector of Land Records to fix the assessment. The Deputy Collector also required the District Inspector of Land Records to find out as to whether there is any breach of condition or not? The District Inspector of Land Records, accordingly, assessed the land and sent the file back to the Deputy Collector, Chauryasi Prant. As per the said determination, the assessment was fixed at Rs.82.40 paisa. 9. The Deputy Collector thereafter, passed an order dated 8.9.2003 recording various aspects. The Deputy Collector, in the paragraph, above the conditions, observed that the applicant i.e. the petitioner and other heirs, have made the land in question cultivable and accordingly, the assessment has to be determined. As per the provisions of section 52 of the Code, since the Deputy Collector was having jurisdiction to fix the assessment, accepted the assessment of Rs.82.40 paisa as determined by the District Inspector of Land Records on certain terms and conditions. As per the provisions of section 52 of the Code, since the Deputy Collector was having jurisdiction to fix the assessment, accepted the assessment of Rs.82.40 paisa as determined by the District Inspector of Land Records on certain terms and conditions. Condition 1 provided that the land will continue to be of a restricted tenure and cannot be transferred without prior permission. Further, condition 3 provided that if there is a request by the applicant for allottment of the land, further steps may be taken as per the prevailing policies of the State Government by paying the occupancy price. Condition 4 was to the effect that rest of the terms and conditions of the order dated 7.1.1967, shall remain as it is. 10. In furtherance of condition 3, mother of the petitioner, submitted an application to allot the land on permanent basis. In paragraph 4 of the application, it is stated that she is in possession of the land since last more than 48 years. The land has been reclaimed and they have been taking crops. Reference of investment is also made. While referring to the order dated 8.9.2003 of the Deputy Collector, it is stated that the applicant has been permitted to apply for the allotment of the land on payment of occupancy price. With this and other grounds in the application, it was urged to remove the restrictions and allot the land to the applicant on permanent basis. The application, was considered seeking opinions from the offices of the Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector, Assistant Town Planner etc. and a detailed proposal dated 29.10.2005, was forwarded to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, with a request to take a decision to allot the land on permanent basis. 11. The State Government in its Revenue Department, did not accept the proposal which decision, was communicated by the Collector vide its letter dated 16.2.2006. Discernibly, another application was addressed to the Collector somewhere in the March 2006; followed by application dated 22.9.2006 by the mother of the petitioner, reiterating request to the Hon’ble the Minister (Revenue). Application was forwarded to the State Government with a request to take a decision, and it, in turn, rejected the request once again vide communication dated 14.8.2006 which, was communicated to the mother of the petitioner vide letter dated 14.9.2006. Application was forwarded to the State Government with a request to take a decision, and it, in turn, rejected the request once again vide communication dated 14.8.2006 which, was communicated to the mother of the petitioner vide letter dated 14.9.2006. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid rejections by the State Government so also the communication dated 16.2.2006, have been accepted and have remained unchallenged by the applicants, including the petitioners. 12. In the writ petition, the petitioner, has prayed for the following reliefs: “7.(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to admit and allow this petition, in the interest of justice; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2015 passed by respondent no.2, in the interest of justice; (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent no.2 to grant the subject land to the petitioner and other family members on permanent basis after conversion of land and accepting the reasonable premium, in the interest of justice; (D) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of impugned order dated 27.11.2015 passed by respondent no.2, in the interest of justice; (E) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed proper by this Hon’ble Court;” So far as relief contained in paragraph 7(C) seeking direction to the respondent no.2 to grant the land in question to the petitioner and other family members on permanent basis, after conversion into old tenure is concerned, the petitioner, has prayed for deletion which permission, was granted by this Court, vide order dated 28.6.2019, and it reads thus: “Heard learned counsels for the parties. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mihir Thakor appearing with learned Advocate Ms.Archana Acharya does not press for the prayer (C) of Paragraph 7 of the petition and therefore, the said prayer stands deleted. Necessary amendment be carried out in the prayer clause forthwith. Rule. Ms.Jyoti Bhatt waives service of notice of Rule for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The ad-interim relief regarding direction to the parties to maintain status-quo is continued till pendency of the present petition.” 13. Therefore, the request and the prayer for allotment of the land on permanent basis, does not deserve to be gone into. Rule. Ms.Jyoti Bhatt waives service of notice of Rule for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The ad-interim relief regarding direction to the parties to maintain status-quo is continued till pendency of the present petition.” 13. Therefore, the request and the prayer for allotment of the land on permanent basis, does not deserve to be gone into. The prayer which, now, remains for adjudication is prayer 7(B). According to which, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.11.2015 passed by the Collector, Surat. By the said order, Collector, Surat, has directed vesting of the land in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The basis on which the said direction has been issued, is that the land was allotted in the year 1967 for a period of 30 years for the purpose of reclamation which lease, got over on 6.1.1997 and therefore, the request of the petitioner for allotment cannot be considered. 14. What weighed with the Collector, was expiry of the lease of 30 years on 6.1.1997. Therefore, the issue of consideration would be as to whether the lease was restricted to 30 years? Some of the provisions relevant for the present purpose are worth referring to. Rule 40 of the Rules of 1972, under Chapter VII titled “The disposal of land vesting in Government and exemptions from land revenue” provides for grants of salt-marsh lands for reclamations. The said provision, reads thus: “40. Some of the provisions relevant for the present purpose are worth referring to. Rule 40 of the Rules of 1972, under Chapter VII titled “The disposal of land vesting in Government and exemptions from land revenue” provides for grants of salt-marsh lands for reclamations. The said provision, reads thus: “40. Grants of salt-marsh lands for reclamations: Salt land or land occassionally overflowed by salt-water, which is not required or likely to be required for salt manufacture, may, after consultation with the Commissioner of Salt, be leased for purposes of reclamation by the Collector, on the following maximum terms, and with such modifications in particular cases as may be deemed fit:- (a) no rent shall be charged for the first ten years; (b) rent at the rate of 60 paise per hectare shall be levied for the next twenty years on the whole area leased, whether reclaimed or not: (c) after the expiry of 30 years the lease shall-be continued in the case of reclaimed lands at the rate at which they would be assessed to land revenue from time to time if they were subjected to survey settlement: and in the case of unreclaimed lands, if any, at the average rate of reclaimed lands: (d) any portion of the land used for public roads shall be exempt from the payment of rent: (e) if the reclamation is not carried on with due diligence within two years, or if half the area is not reclaimed so as to be in the state fit for use for agricultural purposes at the end of ten years, and the whole at the end of twenty years, or if any land once reclaimed as aforesaid is not maintained in the state fit for use for agricultural purposes, the lease shall be liable to cancellation at the discretion of the Collector: Provided that the lessee shall be at liberty during the first ten years to relinquish any area which he cannot reclaim; (f) if the land reclaimed is used for any non-agricultural purpose, its rent shall be liable to be revised according to the rates under whichever of rules 81 to 85 has been applied to the locality non-withstanding that any of the periods specified above may not have expired: (g) Form G2 may generally be used in cases under this rule.” Clause (a) of Rule 40 of the Rules of 1972, provides that no rent shall be charged for first ten years. Clause (b) provides for rent at Rs.60 paise per hectare for the next twenty years on the whole area leased, whether reclaimed or not. Clause (c) provides that after the expiry of 30 years, the lease shall be continued in the case of reclaimed lands at the rate at which they would be assessed to land revenue from time to time if they were subjected to survey settlement. Further, it provides that in the case of unreclaimed lands, if any, at the average rate of reclaimed lands. Clause (d) deals with any portion of land exempted from the payment of rent if, used for public roads. Clause (e) provides that if the reclamation is not carried on with due diligence within two years, or if the half area is not reclaimed so as to be in the state fit for use for agricultural purposes at the end of 10 years, and the whole at the end of 20 years, or if any land once reclaimed, is not maintained in the state fit for use for agricultural purposes, the lease shall be liable to cancellation at the discretion of the Collector. Proviso since not relevant, is not referred to. Clause (f) deals with reclaimed land used for non-agricultural purpose and the rent to be charged. Clause (g) provides for kabulatnama. Pertinently, clauses (a), (b) and (c) provide for charging of the rent at stipulated rate of the reclaimed land, which would be assessed to the land revenue. Clause (e) provides for cancellation at the discretion of the Collector for the eventualities stated therein. 15. As aforesaid, the land came to be allotted somewhere in the year 1966. Initially, order dated 26.10.1966 has been passed by the Assistant Collector containing following conditions which are almost similar to the conditions now appearing in the statute book. Clause (e) provides for cancellation at the discretion of the Collector for the eventualities stated therein. 15. As aforesaid, the land came to be allotted somewhere in the year 1966. Initially, order dated 26.10.1966 has been passed by the Assistant Collector containing following conditions which are almost similar to the conditions now appearing in the statute book. The conditions in vernacular, free english translation would be thus: (i) no rent shall be charged for the first 10 years; (ii) rent at the rate of Rs.0.25 paisa per acre shall be levied for the next 30 years on the whole area leased, whether reclaimed or not; (iii) After the expiry of 30 years, in case of reclaimed lands at the rate on which they would be assessed to the land revenue from time to time if they were subjected to survey settlement and in case of unreclaimed lands, if any, at the average rate of reclaimed lands; (iv) any portion of the land used for public roads shall be exempt from the payment of the rent; (v) if the reclamation is not carried on with due diligence within two years, or if half the area is not reclaimed so as to be in the state fit for use for agricultural purposes at the end of ten years, and the whole at the end of twenty years, or if any land once reclaimed as aforesaid is not maintained in the state fit for use for agricultural purposes, the lease shall be liable to cancellation at the discretion of the Collector; Provided that the lessee shall be at liberty during the first ten years to relinquish any area which he cannot reclaim; (vi) if the land reclaimed is used for any non-agricultural purpose, without permission, the special cess which may be determined shall have to be paid. (vii) Kabulatnama as prescribed in Form G-2 shall be given.” The order dated 7.1.1967 carried almost similar conditions of which, the Collector has made a reference. 16. Condition 1 provides that no rent shall be charged for first 10 years. Condition 2 provides for rent at the stipulated rate for 30 years. Condition 3 provides that after expiry of 30 years in either of the eventualities namely; land reclaimed or not reclaimed, land revenue would be assessed from time to time if the land is subjected to survey settlement. Condition 2 provides for rent at the stipulated rate for 30 years. Condition 3 provides that after expiry of 30 years in either of the eventualities namely; land reclaimed or not reclaimed, land revenue would be assessed from time to time if the land is subjected to survey settlement. Read all conditions in juxtaposition, it no where suggest that the grant of lease, was limited to 30 years. All what it provides is exemption of rent for first 10 years and after expiry of 10 years, on stipulated rate for another 30 years and after 30 years, the assessment for the land in question. 17. This is rightly so, considering the fact that the lease expired in the year 1997 and thereafter no steps were taken. Even in the proceedings which, led to the passing of the order dated 8.9.2003; the Deputy Collector assessed the land at the rate of Rs.82.40 paisa under the provisions of section 52 of the Code on certain terms and conditions; one of which, was that the land would be of restricted tenure. In fact, the Deputy Collector, Chauryasi Prant, was of the opinion that if the applicant is desirous of getting the land, the applicant may do so as per the prevailing policies of the State Government. It is apropos the said condition 3 of the order dated 8.9.2003 that the petitioner and the mother of the petitioner made applications requesting for allotment of the land on permanent basis; however, the applications were rejected by the State Government twice; one vide order dated 27.1.2006 and thereafter, vide order dated 14.8.2006. The said orders, have not been challenged and have been accepted by the petitioner. In the writ petition also, the prayer set out hereinabove, has not been pressed which, has been allowed to be deleted. Be that as it may. 18. At this stage, reference of Section 52 of the Code, would be apt, which provides for fixation of the assessment on all lands. While exercising the powers under section 52 of the Code, the Deputy Collector, Chauryasi Prant has fixed the assessment at Rs.82.40 paisa. Had it been the case of the respondent that the lease has expired in the year 1997, there was no occasion available to the revenue authorities to have determined, in the year 2003, the assessment. While exercising the powers under section 52 of the Code, the Deputy Collector, Chauryasi Prant has fixed the assessment at Rs.82.40 paisa. Had it been the case of the respondent that the lease has expired in the year 1997, there was no occasion available to the revenue authorities to have determined, in the year 2003, the assessment. That course, is in furtherance of the conditions enumerated in the allotment order which, provides for determination of the assessment. 19. Quite apart, in the proceedings when the request was made by the petitioner for grant of the land and after the rejection, proceedings appear to have been initiated by calling the report from the Deputy Collector who, in his report dated 14.8.2013 opined to charge penalty from 7.1.1997 and to vest the land in question in the State Government. The Deputy Collector, was also of the opinion that no further steps are required to be taken and the application be filed. It is thereafter that the Collector passed an order directing vesting of the land in the State Government on the ground that lease, got over on 6.1.1997 so also the request having been rejected by the State Government in the year 2006. 20. Pertinently, while passing the order dated 27.11.2015 all what the impugned order speaks is that the lease, has expired on 7.1.1997 and the original allottee, had not submitted any application for extension and also, without prior permission, the heirship has been recorded, which is illegal. Moreover, the request of the heirs of the allottee for allotment of land on permanent basis, has been rejected in the year 2006 and therefore, the land stands vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. As discussed hereinabove, there lies fallacy in such observation considering the fact that neither Rule 40 of the Rules of 1972 nor Form G-2 limits the lease period. All what it states is that after the expiry of 30 years, “the lease shall be continued in the case of reclaimed lands at the rate at which they would be assessed to land revenue from time to time if they were subjected to survey settlement……...” In fact, clause (c) suggests continuation of the lease period after the expiry of 30 years in the case of reclaimed lands at the specified rate that would be assessed to land revenue. In the present case, it is nobody’s case that the land has not been reclaimed. 21. In fact, in the year 2009, proceedings were initiated for breach of condition and the Deputy Collector, vide detailed order dated 17.2.2009, has concluded that there is no breach of condition. The Deputy Collector, while referring to panchkyas, has recorded that the crop of sugarcane is standing, height of which, is around 7 to 8 feet. The order further states that agricultural activities are being undertaken. With these observations, the Deputy Collector, concluded that there is no breach of condition and closed the proceedings of breach. 22. Hence, the premise on which the order has been passed by the Collector, is erroneous; merely because, the application of the petitioner for allotment of the land on permanent basis, has been rejected it will not permit the Collector to direct vesting of the land in the State Government only on the ground that the lease got expired on 6.1.1997; more particularly, in absence of any breach committed by the petitioner. On the over all consideration of the facts and the provisions of law, the order of the Collector dated 27.11.2015 is illegal and bad and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. 23. The petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.