ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Viral K. Shah for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Hetal Patel for the respondent No.1. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.08.2017 passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) (for short ‘the SSRD’) in Revision Application No.41 of 2009 whereby, the order dated 02.04.2009 passed by the Collector in Appeal Nos.3 and 7 of 2008 is upheld. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under : 3.1 The land in question was conditionally allotted to the petitioner for cultivation. In the year 2008, the petitioner preferred an application before the Mamlatdar seeking to resort the policy of the State Government of converting the new tenure land in question into old tenure. 3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Mamlatdar, Dhandhuka vide order dated 03.10.2007 granted the application of the petitioner by holding that the land in question was held by the petitioner for more than fifteen years and hence, qualified for the benefit of the policy of the State Government and therefore, the land in question was converted into old tenure land. 3.3. The said order was taken in review by the Deputy Collector, Dholka Prant, who set it aside as though the said land in question was allotted to the petitioner for cultivation, however, the same appeared to have remained fallow and hence, the order passed by the Mamlatdar converting the land in question into old tenure was set aside and proceedings of breach of conditions was initiated. 3.4. The Deputy Collector, Dholka Prant, initiated the proceedings for breach of condition when the revenue entries were presented before the same to indicate that the land in question, ever since it was allotted till 2006, has been cultivated personally by the members of the petitioner-Society. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner however could not present the books of account showing agricultural transactions since the Chairman was out of town. The Deputy Collector relying upon a report of the Mamlatdar in which it was stated that there were scattered patches from amongst the 23 parcels of land where there were growth of ‘ganda bawal’ (vid), and that the land in question was not cultivated. The Deputy Collector therefore passed order dated 20.02.2008 forfeiting the land in question into Government. 3.5. The Deputy Collector relying upon a report of the Mamlatdar in which it was stated that there were scattered patches from amongst the 23 parcels of land where there were growth of ‘ganda bawal’ (vid), and that the land in question was not cultivated. The Deputy Collector therefore passed order dated 20.02.2008 forfeiting the land in question into Government. 3.5. It is the case of the petitioner that both the orders passed by the Deputy Collector were challenged before the Collector, Ahmedabad vide separate Appeals and the Collector confirmed both the Orders of the Deputy Collector. 3.6. The order of the Collector was challenged before the SSRD, however, the SSRD did not interfeare with the order of the Collector by order dated 14.08.2017. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Shah for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner- Society was allotted the land in question in the year 1971 and on completion of fifteen years, the petitioner-Society applied for converting the new tenure land into old tenure which was granted by the Mamlatdar. However, the Deputy Collector had taken the order of the Mamlatdar in suo-motu revision and considering the breach of condition for allotment of the land to the petitioner- Society, the Deputy Collector set aside the order of the Mamlatdar, initiated the proceedings for breach of condition and passed an order of confiscation of the land in question for committing breach of condition by the petitioner-Society because as per the Deputy Collector, the petitioner-Society did not utilize the land in question for the purpose, for which it was given and it was kept uncultivated for about more than twenty years. 4.2. It was submitted that the Deputy Collector arrived at such finding on the basis of the application dated 01.01.2008 given by the members of the petitioner-Society and it was also pointed out before the Deputy Collector. It was stated in the application that the petitioner-Society with the connivance of the Mamlatdar, converted the land in question to sale the same for a considerable profit as in nearby area SEZ and Port were to be developed. The Deputy Collector called for the report from the Mamlatdar who conducted an inspection at the site submitted the Panchnama wherein it is stated that on the land in question there were vid at various places and no documents of the petitioner-Society was produced before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector called for the report from the Mamlatdar who conducted an inspection at the site submitted the Panchnama wherein it is stated that on the land in question there were vid at various places and no documents of the petitioner-Society was produced before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector also directed the Mamlatdar to do the videography and on perusal of the video compact disk containing such videography, it was recorded by the Deputy Collector that there is a lot of grass and the land of more than 115 acres given to the petitioner-Society has remained uncultivated. 4.3. It was submitted that the petitioner has challenged such order before the Collector by producing various documents in village Form Nos.7 and 12 from the year 1984-1985 showing that the land was cultivated along with the income and expenditure statement by the petitioner-Society but the respondent- Collector did not consider such evidence, nor provided the copies of Panchnama and compact disk which was considered by the Deputy Collector. It was submitted that videography made by Mamlatdar is not of the land in question but it is of some other land. It was therefore submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector and confirmed on the same reason by the SSRD are required to be quashed and set aside. 5.1. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Hetal Patel for the respondent No.1 submitted that there is concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Deputy Collector, Collector and SSRD with regard to the non-use of the land for which it was allotted to the petitioner-Society. It was further pointed out that the contention of the petitioner-Society that the land of which the videography is made is not of the petitioner is also without any basis, as such videography and the panchnama was drawn by the Mamlatdar pursuant to the inquiry initiated by the Deputy Collector. The petitioner has therefore not utilized the land in question, committing the breach of the condition for which the land was allotted in the year 1971. 5.2. The petitioner has therefore not utilized the land in question, committing the breach of the condition for which the land was allotted in the year 1971. 5.2. It is also pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Patel that the Mamlatdar, while converting the land in question to the old tenure land, has not taken into consideration the fact that there is a breach of condition and a stereotype standard format of the conversion order is passed converting the land into old tenure land by filling in the blanks. 5.3. In support of her submissions, reliance was placed on the order of this Court passed in case of Hareshkumar Masnishankar Vyas versus State of Gujarat and Other in Special Civil Application No.3301 of 2016 wherein, in similar facts this Court has declined to entertain the petition filed by similarly situated person who has committed the breach of condition. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1295 of 2016 in case of Ayeshabegam Shaikh versus State of Gujarat wherein, the Division Bench has held as under : “10. The Primary Authority, after initiating proceedings under section 79A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, has fixed date of hearing by issuing advance notice. Receipt of such notice is not disputed by the appellants, but at the same time on the date of hearing, third party, namely, Hardash Devshibhai Chandera had appeared on behalf of the appellants claiming that he is Power of Attorney Holder and he was representing the appellants. That itself substantiates the stance of the Government that third party is in actual and physical possession of the land and the same is in breach of the conditions. In view of such finding recorded by the Primary Authority and the learned Single Judge, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants continued in possession. Though the land is granted at the first instance in the year 1965, at no point of time fruit bearing trees were grown in spite of the fact that such conditions were continued, even after grant of land on permanent basis. Thus, it is clear that the appellants have breached the conditions imposed in the original grant and the subsequent grant on permanent basis. Thus, it is clear that the appellants have breached the conditions imposed in the original grant and the subsequent grant on permanent basis. Other submission made by the learned counsel that there was no proper opportunity of hearing given in the inquiry proceedings also cannot be accepted. It is to be noticed that it is evident from the Affidavit-in- Reply that notice was issued by the Primary Authority on 15.10.2006, fixing the date of hearing on 25.10.2006. When the matter was called out for hearing on 25.10.2006, third party, namely, Hardash Devshibhai Chandera was present claiming to be Power of Attorney Holder of the appellants. However, no Power of Attorney has been produced by him and the whole proceedings were started when the appellants have moved an application seeking permission to sell the land in question vide application dated 15.08.2004 and the contents of the application itself suggest that the appellants have shown their willingness to sell the land in favour of Hardash Devshibhai Chandera. In view of such contents of the application coupled with the fact that said Hardash Devshibhai Chandera represented before the Collector, that itself is sufficient to hold that proper opportunity was given and the appellants were aware of the hearing of the matter and in spite of the same they have not chosen to appear before the Primary Authority. It appears that the appellants have already inducted a third party in possession and that the they have lost interest in the land in question and that they have failed to appear before the Primary Authority. 11. In view of such material placed on record coupled with the averments made in the Affidavit-in-Reply, it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellants before vesting the land with the Government. Other and the last submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that orders can be passed even in exercise of powers under section 79A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 within reasonable time, but not at this length of time, also cannot be accepted. It is not in dispute that the original grant of lease, and subsequent grant of the very same land on permanent basis is attached with condition, namely, growing fruit bearing trees only. It is not in dispute that the original grant of lease, and subsequent grant of the very same land on permanent basis is attached with condition, namely, growing fruit bearing trees only. Whenever it comes to the notice of the authorities that conditions are breached it is always open for the authorities to initiate proceedings in accordance with law and take steps for vesting the land with the Government. When the Government land is allotted with some objective by imposing certain conditions, and it comes to the notice of the authorities that conditions are breached, it is always open for the authorities to pass order for vesting the land with the Government again. 12. Though the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1676 , we are of the view that having regard to the fact situation in the present case, the said judgment relied on by the learned counsel would not render any assistance in support of the argument that the order is not passed within reasonable time. The aforesaid judgment in the case of Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar (supra) deals with the provisions of sections 54 and 75 Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy, Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949, when there was transaction in favour of nonagriculturist and action was taken after 17 years of transaction such order of the authority was set aside, but in the case on hand the land is attached with certain conditions and when such conditions are not modified by the competent authority it is always open for the authorities to pass appropriate orders when it comes to the notice of the authorities that conditions are breached by the allottee. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants does not support the case of the appellants.” 6. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants does not support the case of the appellants.” 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Collector and the SSRD to the effect that the land in question is never utilized by the petitioner for the agricultural purpose and there is a clear breach of condition, merely because the petitioner has produced the 7/12 extracts before the Collector, the fact of non-utilisation of the land can never be ignored. Moreover, the area of 115 acres of land allotted to the petitioner-Society in the year 1971 has remained uncultivated for all these years is not in dispute as the same is also available from the compact disk containing the videography of the land in question which is referred to in the impugned orders. 7. Thus, the petitioner has failed to produce any cogent prima-facie evidence to show that the land in question is utilized for farming by the Co-operative Society after its allotment and the land has remained barren land without the same being put to any agricultural use. The petitioner has not also produced any document showing even prima-facie evidence before this Court also to point out that the land in question was utilized at any point of time for the agricultural purpose. 8. In such circumstances, grievances made by the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner that the Collector has not considered the documents produced before it is not required to be considered as there is a sufficient evidence available on record before the authorities in form of the panchnama as well as the videography of the land in question to point out that there is a clear breach of the condition of the allotment of the land to the petitioner. 9. In such circumstances, no interference is required to be made in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Notice is discharged.