Breach of land grant conditions and unauthorized construction justify summary eviction and forfeiture under revenue law.

The Appellant, a registered Public Charitable Trust, was granted various land parcels totaling approximately 39,094 sq. mtrs. at Mouje Village Motera between 1980 and 1997 for spiritual, educational, and charitable activities

In 2021, the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) identified these lands for the proposed Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Sports Enclave (Olympics 2036), noting potential breaches of land grant conditions

Subsequently, the State initiated two proceedings: (i) Sharatbhang Case No. 7/2023 under Section 79A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (GLRC) for breach of allotment conditions (unauthorized construction and profitable use); and (ii) Dabaan Case No. 5/2023 under Section 61 of the GLRC for encroaching upon 15,778 sq. mtrs. of Government and riverbed land.

The City Mamlatdar and City Deputy Collector ordered forfeiture and eviction, which was confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and a learned Single Judge of the High Court.

The Appellant challenged these dismissals via the present Letters Patent Appeals.

Section 61 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (GLRC) regarding penalties and eviction for unauthorized occupation of Government land

Section 79A of the GLRC, which empowers the Collector to summarily evict persons occupying land in violation of the provisions of the Code or specific tenure conditions

Rules 32 and 36 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, were applied regarding the conditions of revenue-free grants for educational purposes and the requirement for "new and impartible" tenure compliance

The Court invoked the "Best Evidence Rule" and the principle of "Adverse Inference" under the Indian Evidence Act, noting that the failure of a party to produce material documents in its possession (e.g., audited accounts) justifies an inference against them

The Court rejected the allegation of mala fides, holding that the administrative identification of land for public projects does not bar the State from recovering land occupied in violation of law

Regarding the breach of conditions under Section 79A, the Court observed that the Appellant raised extensive constructions without the mandatory prior approval of the Collector, as evidenced by the Appellant filing 30 applications for regularization under the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act (GRUDA)

On the issue of "profitable use," the Court drew an adverse inference because the Appellant failed to produce audited accounts, fee structures, or expenditure details before the authorities, despite claiming to be purely charitable

Regarding encroachment, the Court upheld the DILR measurement sheet dated 31.07.2023, noting it was prepared using scientific D.G.P.S. (Satellite) methods, which superseded the Appellant’s private "paiki" measurements

The Court emphasized that riverbed (Nadi) land is a water body and its encroachment cannot be regularized

It held that the Appellant was a "habitual offender" with no legal right to the encroached area and had clearly breached the conditions of the original land grants

The Court directed the State to issue a notice under Section 202 of the GLRC to provide the Appellant reasonable time to voluntarily hand over peaceful possession before initiating coercive measures

The prayer for a stay of the judgment was rejected