ORDER : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 02.07.2018 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department in Revision Application No. JMN/GIR/8 of 2018 as well as the order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the Collector, Gir Somnath in Case No. Land/2/C/1716 of 2017. 2. In nutshell, the petitioners were given the land for cultivation of trees on lease and as the petitioners failed to trees plantation on the land for breach of conditions were undertaken and as the petitioners failed to plant the trees as per the conditions of allotment, the proceedings for breach of conditions were initiated and ultimately as it was found that the petitioners have not acted in accordance with the conditions, vide order dated 30.08.2017, the Collector, Gir Somnath passed an order under section 79 A and vested the land into Government. Vide order dated 30.08.2017 which was challenged by way of Revision Application No. JMN/GIR/8/2018 and since, the Revision Application also was rejected vide order dated 02.07.2018, the petitioner has preferred this petition after delay of five years. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kinkhabwala with learned advocate Mr. Snehal Nayak for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondent – State. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner was allotted the land bearing Survey No. 327 paiki admeasuring 1-00-00 Heactre Are Sq. Mtrs. Sitauted at Village: Thordi, Taluka: Veraval and District : Gir Somath for the purpose of plantation of trees and fruits for a period of 15 years vide order dated 20.08.1988. In the order it was noticed by the authority that instead of utilizing the land for the purpose for which it was allotted the petitioner is selling stones from subject matter and therefore, vide order dated 16.09.1996, the lease was terminated and land was vested into Government. Against that order dated 16.09.1996, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Gir Somnath being Appeal No. 31 of 1997 which was rejected vide order dated 30.10.1999. Against which the petitioner preferred a Revision Application No. MVV/JMN/JND/20 of 2000 before the Secretary, Revenue Department. The said Revision Application was partly allowed vide order dated 06.05.2011 and the matter was remanded back to the Collector, Junagadh. Against which the petitioner preferred a Revision Application No. MVV/JMN/JND/20 of 2000 before the Secretary, Revenue Department. The said Revision Application was partly allowed vide order dated 06.05.2011 and the matter was remanded back to the Collector, Junagadh. The remand proceedings were numbered as land/4/Remand/Case No. 5/10-11 and the Collector, Junagadh vide order dated 30.12.2011 regularized the lease period of 15 years as it was expired on 19.08.2003 and extended the period of lease for further five years with a condition that on this time, the petitioners shall have to plant the trees as per the original condition within one year. 4.1. Upon expiry of the extended period of lease, the petitioners preferred an application for renewal of lease on 16.12.2016 and upon verification by the Deputy Collector, Veraval and Mamlatdar, Sutrapada, it was found that the petitioners had planted only 725 trees/plants on the land in question and in the remaining land has cultivated sugarcane which was not as per the condition of order of lease and therefore, the proceedings for breach of conditions were once again initiated against the petitioners. In those proceedings being No. land/2/C/1716/2017, the Collector, Gir Somnath vide order dated 30.08.2017 held that the conditions of lease is breached by the petitioners and hence, in the proceedings under section 79 A, he once again passed an order directing the land to be vested into Government. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order by way of Revision Application No. JMN/GIR/8/2018 before Special Secretary (Appeals). However, even in the Revision Application also the Special Secretary vide order dated 02.07.2018 dismissed the Revision Application and therefore, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 02.07.2018 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) as well as order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the Collector, Gir Somnath, the petitioners have challenged those orders before this Court by way of this petition after a delay of more than 5 years. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kinkhabwala for learned advocate Mr. Snehal Nayak for the petitioners. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kinkhabwala for learned advocate Mr. Snehal Nayak for the petitioners. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Kinkhabvala states that though the petitioners have challenged the impugned order after delay of more than 5 years, after Special Secretary rejected the Revision Application of the petitioner, during interregnum period, the land remained with the petitioner and the petitioners have utilized the land for trees plantations and for plantation of fruits and as on date, there are more than 1000 trees are standing on the land in question and therefore, according to learned advocate Mr. Kinkhabwala, the petitioner is meeting with all the conditions imposed upon the petitioners at the time of lease. 5.2. In view of above submission made by learned advocate Mr. Kinkhabwala which was made even on 01.01.2024 as well, this Court vide order dated 01.01.2024 while issuing notice had directed the Deputy Collector, Veraval to carry out a panchrojkam of the land in question by counting number of trees standing on the land in question and also video-graphed the aforesaid act of carrying out a panchrojkam and produce the photograph of trees standing on the land in question by filing an affidavit before this Court. 6. Pursuant to there to the Deputy Collector, Veraval on 03.01.2024 in presence of the petitioner and two panchas counted the trees and it was found that in all 808 trees standing on the subject land out of which 512 trees were planted within a span of 1.5 years and only 296 trees were planted before a span of 1.5 years. 7. The aforesaid affidavit was filed by the Deputy Collector, Veraval alongwith the photographs of land in question. 8. When learned advocate for the petitioner was confronted with the aforesaid affidavit, learned advocate Mr. Kinkhabwala had no answer to that why his statement was prove to be incorrect. Though learned advocate Mr. Kinkhabwala against the affidavit in reply filed by the Deputy Collector, Veraval filed a rejoinder affidavit and submitted that there are more than 1074 trees are cultivated/planted on the subject land by the petitioners. The same has not been taken into consideration by the Deputy Collector, Veraval while preparing the report. 9. In view of above, learned advocate Mr. Kinkhabwala against the affidavit in reply filed by the Deputy Collector, Veraval filed a rejoinder affidavit and submitted that there are more than 1074 trees are cultivated/planted on the subject land by the petitioners. The same has not been taken into consideration by the Deputy Collector, Veraval while preparing the report. 9. In view of above, learned advocate Mr. Kinkhabwala submits that as the petitioners have planted the trees and as on today even if by the version of the State there are more than 800 trees are standing on the land in question, the impugned order may be quashed and the petitioner may be permitted to continue to plant the trees on the subject land as per the original condition of lease. 10. Learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondent – State vehemently opposed this petition and pointed out before this Court that the petitioner is in habit of breaching the condition of original lease as in the year 1988, the land was granted to the petitioners on lease for plantation of trees for a period of 15 years and within a span of eight years, it was noticed that the petitioners are committing breach of conditions and in fact is excavating the land and selling the stones from the aforesaid land. It was also pointed out by learned AGP Mr. Kanara that though the original lease period was expired in the year 2003 considering the pendency of proceedings before the Special Secretary, the petitioners were given one more chance by remanding back the matter and even after remand, the Collector, Junagadh in the year 2011 had not only regularize the earlier period of land but extended it for a further period of five years which was ending in the year 2016. Even upon end of second lease period when the petitioners applied for renewal of lease and when the verification about the lease condition took place, it was found that the petitioners had planted only 725 trees as against minimum 1000 plantation of the trees on the land in question and therefore, in the second round of litigation also, the petitioners’ lease was rightly terminated and the land was directed to be vested in Government. There also the petitioner failed upto Special Secretary (Appeals) who rejected the petitioner’s Revision Application vide order dated 02.07.2018. There also the petitioner failed upto Special Secretary (Appeals) who rejected the petitioner’s Revision Application vide order dated 02.07.2018. Thereafter, the petitioners did not challenge the aforesaid order and continued to be illegal possession of the land in question and therefore, the Mamlatdar, Sutrapada vide notice dated 26.10.2023 intimated the petitioners to vacate the land and to pay the penalty for illegal encroachment over the land, it is only at this juncture that the petitioners challenged the order passed in the year 2018 dated 02.07.2018 before this Court after a delay of more than five years. 11. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned AGP Mr. Kanara submitted that the petitioners are in habit of breaching the condition of lease and the purpose behind giving the land on lease to the petitioner is not fulfilled as the petitioners were given the land to plant the trees on the land and from its produced to earn the livelihood. The petitioner is not utilizing the land for the same purpose and even in the second round of litigation also, it was found that the petitioner has continuously committed the breach of condition. He submitted that though there is no explanation coming forward from the petitioner for challenging the order of the year July, 2018 in the year of 2023. Even during interregnum period also, the petitioners did not acted as per the conditions of lease and when the panchrojkam took place on 03.01.2024, it was found that out of 808 trees standing on the land, even on that day it was found that 512 out of 808 trees were planted within a span of 1.5 years and only 296 trees were planted before a span of 1.5 years which would indicate that even on 03.01.2024 though the petitioners were occupied the land since 1988 even after 35 years, the petitioners have not acted in accordance with the terms of lease and therefore, the order of terminating the lease and directing the land to be vested into Government has rightly been passed by the Collector, Gir Somnath and confirmed by the Special Secretary (Appeals). He, therefore, prayed for dismisal of the petition. 12. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. He, therefore, prayed for dismisal of the petition. 12. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I found that the petitioner was originally allotted the land for cultivation of tress and fruits in the year 1988 and though it was found in the year 1996 itself that the petitioner is not utilizing the land for the same purpose, an order was passed vesting the land into Government. Somehow on account of pendency of challenge to the aforesaid order before Collector and Special Secretary, the petitioner succeeded in retaining the land with them till the year 2011. Ultimately in the year 2011, when Special Secretary partly allowed the petitioners’ revision application and remanded the matter back to the Collector, the Collector, Gir Somnath was kind enough to regularize the interregnum the lease period and had also extended the lease for further period five years on the condition that the petitioner shall plant the trees/fruits plants on the land as per the conditions. 13. However, upon the petitioners’ application for renewal made in the year 2016. upon verification it was found that once again the petitioner has breached the condition. Not only that further pursuant to this Court’s order dated 01.01.2024 when a panchrojkam took place on 03.01.2024, it was found that out of 808 trees standing on the land in question 512 trees were planted within a span of 1.5 years which indicates that the petitioner had actually not bothered to abide by the conditions on which the petitioners were granted the land for cultivation of trees. 14. Further the petitioners were allotted the land for a period of 15 years originally on lease for plantation of trees, such lease cannot be indefinitely and must not be extended even for a day when it is found that the petitioners were committed breach of conditions not once but thrice in the year 1996, in the year 2006 and in the year 2024. 15. 15. In view of above, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the Collector, Gir Somnath as well as order dated 02.07.2018 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department on merits as well as considering the fact that there is no justifiable explanation coming forward from the petitioners to challenge the order after a period of more than five years, the petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of delay as well. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.