Gujarat High Court
Lhs Of Mohanbhai Dhulabhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 25 November, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13298/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13298 of 2021
=============================================
LHS OF MOHANBHAI DHULABHAI RATHOD & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MOHMEDSAIF HAKIM(5394) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,10.1,10.2,10.3,10.4,10.5,10.5.1,10.5.2,10.5.3,10.5.4,11,1.1,12,
1.2,12.1,12.2,12.3,12.4,12.5,12.6,13,1.3,14,15,16,16.1,16.2,16.3,16
.4,16.5,17,17.1,17.2,17.3,18,18.1,18.2,18.3,18.4,19,2,20,21,2.1,22,
2.2,22.1,22.2,22.2.1,22.3,22.4,22.5,2.3,3,3.1,3.2,3.2.1,3.2.2,3.2.3,3.
2.4,3.2.5,3.2.6,3.2.7,3.2.8,3.2.9,3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6,4,5,6,7,8,9,9.1,9.2,9.
3
MR SANJAY UDHWANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. The rejoinder affidavit filed today in the Court is taken
on record.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners seek to
challenge the order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the Deputy
Collector, Jambusar whereby the request to renew the lease
executed for agricultural/forestation purposes in favour of the
petitioners has been refused. The order impugned
categorically records that the land in question is needed for a
public project known as Bulk Drug Park of the Central
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13298/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
Government and it was required to be transferred to the
Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC). The
present petition has been filed on 14.09.2021 after the
possession of the land in question had been handed over to
the GIDC.
3. The case of the petitioners in the present petition is that
the land bearing Block/Revenue Survey No. 166 admeasuring
288 acres 20 gunthas, Bakarpor Timbi was uncultivable and
khar land and was recorded in the name of the State
Government. Vide order dated 02.11.1981, the Collector,
Bharuch had leased 7 acres of the said land to each of the
petitioners for a period of 20 years with the conditions
mentioned in the lease deeds. Vide Mutation entry no. 790
dated 29.11.1981, the order of the Collector granting leases
was recorded in the revenue record. The contention is that
lease agreements for the period of 20 years were executed
between the petitioners and the Mamlatdar, Jambusar on
behalf of the State Government.
4. Subsequently, vide order dated 31.12.1987, the purpose
of the lease was changed from agricultural to improvement of
lands for forestation. The petitioners continued to remain in
possession of the land in question and while cultivating the
same they were also paying the revenue. In March 2008,
applications were made by the petitioners for removal of lease
dated 02.11.1981 before the Deputy Collector, Bharuch. The
said applications were rejected vide order dated 30.09.2008
on the ground of delay and breach of the lease conditions.
5. On a challenge made by the petitioners before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13298/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
Collector, Bharuch, vide order dated 04.01.2010, the appeals
were allowed in part and the matter was remanded back to
the Deputy Collector, Bharuch for fresh consideration. For
almost 10 years, after remand, the matter remained pending
and vide order dated 14.09.2020, the Deputy Collector,
Bharuch had rejected the renewal application providing that
the land shall vest with the State Government as it is needed
to establish Bulk Drug Park.
6. The contention in the writ petition is that the petitioners
though appeared before the Deputy Collector, Jambusar
pursuant to the notice dated 07.09.2020, but they have not
been provided effective hearing and an opportunity to engage
an advocate. The contention in the writ petition, thus, is that
the order impugned dated 14.09.2020 is liable to be set aside
being in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The
petitioners had again approached the Deputy Collector,
Jambusar on 16.09.2020 seeking for effective hearing of the
matter.
7. In order to press the prayers made in the writ petition
seeking for quashing of the order dated 14.09.2020, the
learned counsel for the petitioners essentially relied upon a
judgment and order dated 20.10.2021 passed by this Court in
the Special Civil Application No. 15545 of 2021, which was
also directed against the order dated 14.09.2020 passed by
the Deputy Collector, Jambusar in the matters where the
Deputy Collector had cancelled the lease deed dated
02.11.1981 while refusing to grant renewal.
8. A perusal of the judgment and order dated 20.10.2021,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13298/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
challenging the similar order herein, indicates that the
Division Bench has noted therein that the land in question
being the land which is vested with the State Government, the
petitioners cannot claim right as primary right holders and
they were merely secondary right holders being the lessees.
9. The arguments made by the learned advocate of denial
of opportunity of hearing in passing the order impugned has
been turned down by recording that the order dated
14.09.2020 had been passed after issuance of notice on
07.09.2020. It is also noted by the Division Bench that the
petitioners who were granted land on lease way back in the
year 1981 continued to remain in possession of the lease land
at least till the year 2000. The State Government, therefore,
was required to consider the claim of the petitioners for
allotment of any alternative land as per the existing scheme,
though not necessarily to the extent to which they had earlier
been allotted in the year 1981.
10. The writ petition filed by the petitioners therein was
treated as representation of the petitioners therein and liberty
was granted to the petitioners to file one more representation
before the appropriate Government for consideration of their
claim for allotment of land.
11. Placing reliance on the judgment and order dated
20.10.2021, essentially the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that alternative lands be directed to be
allotted to the petitioners in the same manner as has been
directed by the Division bench in the aforesaid decision
rendered on 20.10.2021.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13298/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
12. Considering the said submission, pertinent is to record
that the petitioners were granted lease of the lands in
question in the year 1981 for a period of 20 years and the
lease period had expired in 2001. Admittedly, the renewal
applications were filed by the petitioners in the year 2008
after 7 years of expiry of lease. The request though was
initially rejected, but there has been a reconsideration in the
order dated 14.09.2020. Though the matter of renewal of
lease remained pending before the Deputy Collector,
Jambusar after remand till September 2020, but the fact
remains that the petitioners have been dispossessed from the
lands in question on 23.09.2020, inasmuch as, it was needed
for construction of a Bulk Drug Park and the possession was
required to be handed over to the GIDC.
13. As per the stand taken by the respondents in the
affidavit of respondent no.3, there is no policy of the State
Government enabling accommodation of the petitioners in an
alternative land for conferring leasehold rights.
14. In the rejoinder affidavit, it is submitted by the
petitioners that the petitioners have remained in continuous
possession and have been paying revenue for utilisation of the
lands in question for decades. They belong to Scheduled
Tribe community and with their labour, they have converted
barren khar land into fertile land. The land in question is
already allotted to the GIDC for the purposes of Bulk Drug
Park on a lease of 50 years vide order dated 03.10.2020 after
possession of the land in question has been handed over to the
GIDC on 23.09.2020.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13298/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
15. To the stand of the respondents that there is no policy
for providing alterative land, reference is made to one case of
a Scheduled Tribe lease holder of the nearby village, namely
Kalak of the same Taluka where lease had been renewed for
an additional period of 15 years even after expiry, with effect
from the year 2010. Various contentions have been made
about the protection or safeguards under the the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.
16. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners and the stand taken in the writ
petition and rejoinder affidavit, suffice is to note that the
contentions made in the rejoinder based upon the provisions
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are
wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, the said provisions do not
have any bearing on the leasehold rights conferred upon the
petitioners. The admitted facts are that the petitioners were
granted lease in the year 1981 by a written lease document
for a period of 20 years. They were granted only leasehold
rights whereas the ownership remained with the State
Government.
17. The lease period had expired in the year 2001. The
petitioners remained in possession of the land in question
even after expiry of lease for a further period of 7 years even
without seeking renewal thereof. The renewal applications
were moved only in the year 2008 before the Deputy
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13298/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
Collector, Jambusar who had rejected the same initially being
belated request. However, later in the year 2020, the claim of
the petitioners for renewal of the lease granted in 1981,
expired in the year 2001, was rejected on the ground that the
land in question was needed for a public project.
18. The claim of the petitioners for award of compensation
for the improvements made in the land for the period of
occupation is unsustainable for the simple reason that the
petitioners overstayed the period of lease and remained in the
possession of the land in question for a period of 19 years
without any authority of law and, have, thus, enjoyed the
fruits of the lands for the aforesaid period.
19. In the above scenario, no infirmity can be attached to the
order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector,
Jambusar, subject matter of challenge herein.
20. Further, as regards the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners for providing alternative land on
lease under the policy of the State, in view of the stand taken
by the respondent that there is no such policy, no positive
mandamus can be issued.
21. However, taking note of the observations made in the
judgment and order dated 20.10.2021, it is provided herein
that the petitioners are at liberty to move fresh
representations/applications before the Collector concerned,
seeking for grant of leasehold right for agricultural purposes.
If such applications are moved along with the copy of this
order within a period of two weeks from today, the Collector
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13298/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
concerned shall be under obligation to take a decision, strictly
in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking
order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application,
under due intimation to the petitioners.
22. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on
the claim of the petitioners for grant of fresh lease under the
policy of the State, if any, and the competent authority,
namely the Collector is free to take a decision at his own ends,
strictly in accordance with law.
23. With the above the present petition stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
