JUDGMENT : (N.V. Anjaria, J.) Heard learned senior advocate Mr. P.C. Kavina assisted by learned advocate Mr.Viral Gurjar for the appellants in both the appeals, learned senior advocate Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi with learned advocate Mr. G.H. Virk for respondent no.6, learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi assisted by learned advocate Mr.Amar Mithani for respondent no.5 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve for respondent no.1. 2. The appellant-original petitioner seeks to call in question by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal, the common judgement and order of learned Single Judge dated 29.09.2023 whereby the two Special Civil Application No. 16587 of 2022 and Special Civil Application No. 16588 of 2022 came to be dismissed. Learned Single Judge upheld the common order dated 27.07.2022 passed in the revision application by the Revisional Authority-Secretary (Appeals). 2.1 The order of the revisional authority, which was impugned in the Special Civil Applications was common order passed in Revision Application No. 11 of 2021, which was filed by respondent no.5 herein. The other Revision Application No. 15 of 2021 dealt with by the Revisional Authority was preferred by the respondent no.6 herein. Accordingly, two Special Civil Applications and two Letters Patent Appeals resulted. 2.2 What was prayed in the petitions by the appellant-petitioner was to set aside the aforementioned order dated 27.07.2022 of respondent no.1-revisional authority. It was prayed to revive the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the District Collector, Gir Somnath, which was set at naught by the Revisional Authority. 3. The dispute dealt with by the revenue authorities was in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 637 Paiki, admeasuring 11 acres and 19 gunthas and Survey No. 633 admeasuring 5 acres and 10 gunthas situated at village Sarkhadi, Kodinar. The appellant-petitioner had been staking claim in respect of the said land on the ground that the land was granted to his deceased father Virbhanbhai Govindbhai by order dated 25.03.1969 in santhani and that accordingly, the appellant-petitioner was entitled to retain the said land in such capacity. 3.1 It appears that certain parcels of land including the aforementioned Survey No. 633 and 367 became surplus under the provisions of the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act and vested in the State Government, the possession of which was assumed by the Collector on behalf of the Government. 3.1 It appears that certain parcels of land including the aforementioned Survey No. 633 and 367 became surplus under the provisions of the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act and vested in the State Government, the possession of which was assumed by the Collector on behalf of the Government. Different persons came to be allotted the said surplus land vested in the State Government as above by order dated 25.03.1969 of the Assistant Collector, Rajula, on conditions mentioned in the order. The grantees at that time included Virbhanbhai Govindbhai-father of the appellant and one Budhabhai Govindbhai, who is stated to be in relation with the appellant-petitioner. Virbhanbhai Govindbhai was granted the area as above whereas Budhabhai was also granted part of the area from Survey No. 637 paiki. At that time, the grantee persons were supposed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards occupancy price. 3.2 The case was put forth by the petitioner-appellant herein before the revenue authorities as also in the writ petition that the order of granting land to him in santhani found mutation in the revenue record in form of entry no.1306 dated 15.12.1970. It was the claim that since then, the petitioner was in possession of the land. It was further claim that possession was handed over at that time and santhani/occupancy price was paid at that time. However, since 45 years have passed by, the petitioner did not have the receipt showing the payment of occupancy price. It was claimed that along with the name of Budhabhai Govindbhai, name of the petitioner was also entered in the revenue record. 3.3 An application came to be made before the Mamlatdar by the petitioner on 02.05.2017 offering Rs.2,000/- to be accepted towards occupancy price. As per order dated 25.06.1969. The petitioner failed in his request. The application of the petitioner was rejected. At one stage, the case was remanded. Remand Case No. 55 of 2019 was decided by the Deputy Collector as per order dated 20.01.2021 and the order of Mamlatdar dated 06.05.2018 rejecting the application of the petitioner was confirmed. 3.4 Against the said order of the Deputy Collector, appeal was preferred by the Collector, which ended upto order dated 17.12.2020 in favour of the appellant-petitioner, however, when challenged before the Revisional Authority by respondents no.5 and 6 herein respectively, as above, the order of the Collector was upturned by the Revisional Authority. 3.4 Against the said order of the Deputy Collector, appeal was preferred by the Collector, which ended upto order dated 17.12.2020 in favour of the appellant-petitioner, however, when challenged before the Revisional Authority by respondents no.5 and 6 herein respectively, as above, the order of the Collector was upturned by the Revisional Authority. The said order of the Revisional Authority led to filing of the writ petition and now the challenge has reached at this stage of Letters Patent Appeal by the appellant. 3.5 As regards the claim of the petitioner that he had paid the occupancy price at the relevant time, but the receipt was lost, the Collector recorded that the said fact could not be verified for want of availability of the old record. The Collector recorded that it was not clear that the petitioner was handed over the possession of the land, however, relying on some Circular dated 19.02.2018 of the revenue department, the view was taken that the petitioner was entitled to be given possession, if not given, and the order granting land dated 25.03.19639 was in currency. 3.6 It was reasoned that resolutions of the State Government permit the payment of occupancy price with interest therefore, for such reasoning, finally, the Collector directed the Mamlatdar, Kodinar to accept the request of the petitioner and proceed accordingly, thereby cancelling the order dated 20.06.2020 of the Deputy Collector. The said order of the Collector dated 17.12.2020 was taken in revision, it was disapproved and set aside, for the reasons recorded by the revisional authority. 3.7 In its common order dated 27.07.2022, the Revisional Authority held that the order of Collector passed after 49 years was without verifying the records, further observing that after the order dated 25.03.1969, the allottee of the land, the deceased father of the petitioner did not take any step to pay the occupancy price. The intervening developments and events were referred to allow the revision application. 3.8 Before proceeding further, the developments, which cannot be said to be not important, may be noticed. The land in question was proposed to be utilised for developing the port. the State Government accepted the bid of the company named M/ s. Shapoorji Palonji & Co. - respondent no.5 on 19.04.2008 for construction of Simar Port, also known as Chhara Port. The land in question was proposed to be utilised for developing the port. the State Government accepted the bid of the company named M/ s. Shapoorji Palonji & Co. - respondent no.5 on 19.04.2008 for construction of Simar Port, also known as Chhara Port. 3.8.1 Letter of Intent dated 25.04.2008 was issued by the Gujarat Maritime Board, respondent no.6, in favour of respondent no.5. 3.8.2 On 07.04.2010, the Gujarat Maritime Board applied to the Collector for allotting the land for the purpose of project of port. The record shows that at that time, the land was running in the name of State Government in village form no. 8A, 7/12. 3.8.3 On 07.04.2010, the Gujarat Maritime Board granted permission to respondent no.5 for acquiring the private lands for the Port. The detailed project report dated 20.07.2010 was approved by the Gujarat Maritime Board, site inspection was carried out. 3.8.4 It was claimed that at that time, the encroachment of one Rama Bogabhai was found on the subject land. While processing the application dated 07.04.2010 of the Gujarat Maritime Board, the Mamlatdar gave a report stating that the land was in possession of said Ramabhai Bogabhai. It appears that the authorities corresponded inter se for removal of the said encroachment. 3.8.5 Memorandum of Understanding was executed between Gujarat Maritime Board and respondent no.5 company in 2011. The Collector was requested to allot the land on priority basis by removing the encroachment. 3.8.6. On 06.01.2014, environment clearance was issued by Government of India for development of the port. 3.8.7 On 17.01.2014, respondents no.5 purchased the land Survey No. 633 P from the heir of Bogha Govindbhai, to whole a part of the said survey number was allotted. 3.8.9 Concession Agreement dated 29.01.2015 came to be executed between the Gujarat Maritime Board and respondent no.5. A notification dated 19.02.2015 was published by the Government defining the limits of the purpose of Chhara port. 3.9 An application was made on 09.08.2016 by the Gujarat Maritime Board and at the site, it was noticed, as per the report of the Circle Officer that the subject matter land Survey No. 633 P was found in possession of Rama Bogha whereas Survey No. 637 P was noticed to be in possession of the encroacher. 3.9 An application was made on 09.08.2016 by the Gujarat Maritime Board and at the site, it was noticed, as per the report of the Circle Officer that the subject matter land Survey No. 633 P was found in possession of Rama Bogha whereas Survey No. 637 P was noticed to be in possession of the encroacher. 3.9.1 Construction Permission dated 18.10.2017 under Section 35(1) of the Gujarat Maritime Board Act has been issued in favour of respondent no.5 company, which has purchased the further private lands for development of the port project totaling 219 Hectares 29 Are and 1 sq. mtr. 3.9.2 The above events are attendant aspects of the case. 4. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners assailed the impugned judgment and order to submit that the order of the Collector dated 17.12.20120 rightly permitted the petitioners to pay the occupancy price and to have the land allotted in 1969. It was submitted that the land was allotted under section 29 of the Gujarat Agriculture Land Ceiling Act, 1960, and once the order was passed under section 29, the right accrued could not be taken away. He submitted that section 29 of the Gujarat Agriculture Land Ceiling Act, 1960 specially operates to grant a kind of privilege to use the land for agriculture. For the purpose of applying the scope of section 29 of the Act, he relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in D.K. Maru vs. State of Gujarat [ 2000 (3) GLR 1881 ]. 4.1 Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent Gujarat Maritime Board submitted that the conditions of allotment was not satisfied by the petitioners-appellants. He submitted that thereafter material developments took place and land came to be allowed for the Maritime Board to proceed to permit to develop a private port. Learned senior advocate relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation vs. M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Ltd.[ (2017) 5 SCC 86 ] for its paragraphs 24 and 27. 4.2 The decision of this Court in Jamnagar Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat [ 2017 (3) GLR 2067 ] was pressed into service to highlight that in the facts of the case, no right could be said to have been surviving in the petitioner when it failed to discharge his part of commitments pursuant to the allotment in the year 1969. 4.3 Learned senior advocate appearing for the private respondent no.5 contended that the petitioner has miserably failed to establish even a semblance of right. It was submitted that the Collector committed a serious error in holding that the allotment on 25.03.1969 remained operative in view of the mutation entry no. 1303 and that such entry indicated that the allotment remained operative. It was further submitted that the record revealed that even the petitioner himself had applied for re-grant of the land. He had already lost his right qua the land having not paid the occupancy price and having not utilised the land. 4.4 It was next submitted that the mutation entry no. 303 only mentioned that 17 acres of land was allotted to Bagha Govindbhai and the entry was only for Survey No. 637. It did not reflect the order of Virbhan Govind, which was 16 acres and 29 gunthas. However, it was sought to be demonstrated that there was an interpolate and forgery in respect to the said entry. It was submitted that criminal proceedings are filed against the petitioner and the revenue officer, that the inquiry is ordered by the competent court. He further highlighted the various developments mentioned above to submit that respondent no.5 has invested huge funds and energy for the purpose of proposed port to be developed on the land. He also highlighted the location of the land by producing the map to show that it was near to sea. 5. The various events and aspects regarding clearing the land for Gujarat Maritime Board to allow it to permit development of private port, etc., are of only attendant importance. The centripetal and moot question to be considered is whether the appellant-petitioner is in position to assert and stake any right in respect of the land in question. 5. The submission on the part of the appellant that it has special right under section 29 of the Gujarat Agriculture Land Ceiling Act, 1960, may be disposed of at the outset. The land in question became surplus under section 21 of the Act and vested in the State Government from all encumbrances, as provided in the said section. Section 29 deals with the allotment of land vesting in the Government. On going through the section, it mentions that land could be allotted to different categories of eligibles. The land in question became surplus under section 21 of the Act and vested in the State Government from all encumbrances, as provided in the said section. Section 29 deals with the allotment of land vesting in the Government. On going through the section, it mentions that land could be allotted to different categories of eligibles. 5.1 On going through the section, there is nothing in the section, which would grant any special privileges to the allottee or that the allottee has a special right to retain the land. The allotment would be under the conditions which may be prescribed for the purpose. Until the conditions of the allotment are complied with by the allottee concerned, the land would continue to vest in the State government and the transfer of ownership would not taken place in favour of the allottee. A bare reading of section brings out the above position. 5.2 The allotment letter under which the land which claimed to have been given in Santhani to the appellant was dated 25.3.1969. Its copy figures on the record of the petition of the appeal. It is clearly seen that Boga Govind was allotted 17 acres out of survey No.637 Paiki and another Virbhan Govind was given 11 acres and 19 gunthas out of same survey number and further 5 acres and 10 gunthas from survey No.633 were allotted. The allotment was based on the conditions mentioned in the allotment letters itself. 5.3 The conditions inter alia provided that the occupancy price shall have to be paid within a month, that measurement fees would have to be paid, that land shall not be sold or encumbered without permission of the Collector. It was also the condition that the land should be used for agriculture purpose and if for continuous two years, the agricultural activity is not done, the land will be liable to be forfeited. 5.4 There is no gainsaying that allotment of land is not completed until and unless all the conditions are fulfilled and satisfied. There will be no grant of land in eye of law when the occupancy price is not paid. Despite the order of allotment to the petitioner, the land continued to vest in the government when the petitioner has failed to comply with the conditions. There will be no grant of land in eye of law when the occupancy price is not paid. Despite the order of allotment to the petitioner, the land continued to vest in the government when the petitioner has failed to comply with the conditions. 5.5 In Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (supra), the question before the supreme Court was the effect and on allotment of land when the condition of executing a lease deed was not satisfied by the allottee. What is observed is applicable to the facts of this case, wherein also, the petitioner for long years, remained in slumber and did not comply with the condition of grant including payment of occupancy price, "Mesco was required to do several acts in this case as per the general terms and conditions subject to which the lease was to be granted. Nothing has been performed including payment of instalments etc. and in such a situation no relief is permissible to be given as held by this Court in Raj Kishore (Dead) by LRs. v. Prem Singh & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 657 in which this Court has referred to Halsbury’s Laws of England thus : “33. This Court also quoted with approval the following passage from Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 14, IIIrd Edn., p. 622, Para 1151: “1151. Conditions must as a general rule be strictly observed.—Where under a contract, conveyance, or will a beneficial right is to arise upon the performance by the beneficiary of some act in a stated manner, or at a stated time, the act must be performed accordingly in order to obtain the enjoyment of the right, and in the absence of fraud, accident or surprise, equity will not relieve against a breach of the terms.” It is apparent that when several acts are to be done in a stated manner and in stipulated time and none of them has been performed, as in the instant case, such gross breach became irremediable and no equitable principle could have come to the rescue of Mesco as it has utterly failed to fulfil its obligations." (para 24) 6. Learned single Judge has observed about inconsistent stand of the petitioner in relation to payment of occupancy price which was required to be paid upon allotment order dated 25.3.1969 in para 8.1, “It will be also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner herein has taken contradictory stand before the different revenue authorities. In the communication dated 22.08.2017, the petitioner has stated before the Deputy Collector that his father was unable to pay the occupancy price pursuant to the allotment order dated 25.03.1969. Thereafter, in the communication dated 18.10.2017, the petitioner once again stated that his father was unable to pay the occupancy price. In the communication dated 02.02.2018 to the Mamlatdar, Kodinar, the petitioner has stated that his father had paid the occupancy price at the relevant point of time pursuant to the allotment order dated 25.03.1969, however the petitioner was not in possession of the payment receipt. This change of stand was further reflected in the communication dated 07.08.2018 by the petitioner. Finally, the petitioner has adopted the stand that his father could not pay the occupancy price and that he should be re- granted the land and the occupancy price along with penalty thereon be charged from him while condoning the delay.” 6.1 The aspect whether the appellant-petitioner was handed over the possession of the land or not and whether even the possession was at all handed over remained in grey area. While the petitioner appellant claims that he was in possession, in that regard also, the stand was inconsistent not credible. 6.2 This aspect was also noticed by learned single Judge, “Similar is the stand taken by the petitioner in respect of the possession. The petitioner alleges that he and his father are in possession of the subject land since the date of the allotment order i. e. 25.03.1969. However, in the application dated 02.02.2018 made to the Mamlatdar, Kodinar, it is requested that in terms of the allotment order dated 25.03.1969, he is ready and willing to pay the occupancy price with interest and hence, the possession of the subject lands may be handed over to him. However, in the application dated 02.02.2018 made to the Mamlatdar, Kodinar, it is requested that in terms of the allotment order dated 25.03.1969, he is ready and willing to pay the occupancy price with interest and hence, the possession of the subject lands may be handed over to him. In contrast, after the port limits for Chhara port limits were notified in the Government Gazette and the inspection of the subject lands was carried out by the Circle Officer of the Mamlatdar office, Kodinar, the possession of the lands in question is shown to be with one Rama Bhoga and other encroachers. Further, in the communication dated 09.07.2019 of the Collector in response to the respondent No.6’s application dated 17.06.2019, it is informed that the subject lands are encroached upon by some local persons, however, the possession of the petitioner is not indicated therein also.” 6.3 Learned Single Judge analysed the facts threadbare. He also examined the order of the Collector dated 17.12.2020 for its merits to record that the Collector passed the order in absence of the original record. It was observed that the Deputy Collector, Una, had sent the record, however, the record had reached, as reflected from the dates, to the office of the Collector on 23.12.2020 only. Thus, it could be inferred that the Collector, Gir-Somnath allowed the appeal of the petitioner in absence of the original record. It was also recorded by learned Single Judge that reliance was placed on Resolutions dated 24.12.1981 and 01.11.2003 along with circular dated 19.02.2018, which show that they were not applicable to the facts of the present case and they were applicable only in respect of the government waste land. Learned Single judge also found that the action on the part of the Collector to regularise the land was not based on any reason, much less good reasons. 7. Long 48 years had passed and now the land was notified for development of port and could no longer be used as agriculture. There was no evidence that even in the meantime, the land was used for agriculture by the petitioner. The Collector ignored all the subsequent developments in relation to the land. Still, as already highlighted, after the allotment of land to the father of the petitioner in 1969, as Santhani, the allottee remained in slumber and did not take any steps to pay the occupancy price. The Collector ignored all the subsequent developments in relation to the land. Still, as already highlighted, after the allotment of land to the father of the petitioner in 1969, as Santhani, the allottee remained in slumber and did not take any steps to pay the occupancy price. Since no condition of allotment was satisfied, no right whatsoever could accrue for the appellant-petitioner. 8. In Jamnagar Properties Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court observed thus, in relation to the facts of the said case, which could be applied in this case also, extracting from paragraph 16, "The petitioner having failed to use the land for the purpose for which it was granted to the petitioner, there was clear breach of condition incorporated in the lease deed, and therefore the Collector on behalf of the State Government had the authority to take necessary action against the petitioner. It cannot be gainsaid that the Collector has powers to grant permission to any person to occupy any unalienated unoccupied land for such period and on such conditions as he deems proper subject to rules made by the State Government in this behalf, and such occupancy is always subject to the conditions so prescribed as contemplated in Section 68 read with Section 37 of the Code. Any breach of conditions may entail action as per such conditions incorporated in the document of grant itself or under Section 79A or under such other provision of the Code, as may be applicable to the facts of the case." 9. The absence of any right of the petitioner in the land is coupled with the following further facts and aspects, which finally put to rest the merits of the case of the appellant-petitioner, (i) Petitioner's predecessor never bothered to pay the occupancy price. (ii) Petitioner is unable to produce any evidence of payment of occupancy price. (iii) There is no sufficient evidence to show petitioner was holding the land revenue receipts, etc. Since 1969, the land continued with the Government as the possession was not handed over to petitioner. (iv) Importantly, after 49 years petitioner approached the authority for the payment of occupancy price, without explaining delay. (v) Village Form No. 7/12 from 1971 to 2005 reflects the name of the State Government and in the column of cultivator, name of Bogha Govind and thereafter, name of Rama Bogha is reflected. (iv) Importantly, after 49 years petitioner approached the authority for the payment of occupancy price, without explaining delay. (v) Village Form No. 7/12 from 1971 to 2005 reflects the name of the State Government and in the column of cultivator, name of Bogha Govind and thereafter, name of Rama Bogha is reflected. (vi) Thus, there is no clear evidence that Virbhan Govind or his heirs were in possession. (vii) Even the Collector's letter dated 28.12.2010 state encroachment of local person and therefore, even the same does not clearly reflect possession of Virbhan Govind. 10. In view of what is held and recorded by learned Single Judge and the discussions supplied hereinabove, no error could be found in the order of learned Single Judge. It is eminently just, proper and legal. No interference is warranted. 11. Both the Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Viral Gurjar requested that interim order of status-quo, which has been operating may be extended, for a reasonable period, in order to enable the appellant to approach the higher forum. Request was vehemently objected by the learned senior advocate for the respondents. In view that the appellant wants to approach the higher court and since the order of status-quo has operated since 2022, the same shall continue for period upto 11.12.2023.