Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Khedut Samaj & vs Principal Secretary & ... on 27 October, 2015
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel, N.V.Anjaria
C/WPPIL/227/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 227 of 2015
With
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 228 of 2015
==========================================================
GUJARAT KHEDUT SAMAJ & 1....Applicant(s)
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & 4....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BB NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR RIDDHESH TRIVEDI,
ADVOCATE for the Applicants in WP(PIL) No. 227 of 2015
MR AJ YAGNIK for Applicants in WP(PIL) No. 228 of 2015
MS MANISHA L SHAH, GP with MR DM DEVNANI, AGP for the Opponent No.
1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 27/10/2015
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAYANT PATEL)
1. As common questions are raised in these two petitions, they are being considered simultaneously.
2. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 227 of 2015 has been preferred by Gujarat Khedut Samaj and Navsari-Jalalpor Taluka Khedut Samaj, whereas Writ Petition (PIL) No. 228 of 2015 has been preferred by various students who are studying in the Navsari Krishi University (hereafter to be referred to as "the Page 1 of 8 HC-NIC Page 1 of 8 Created On Thu Oct 29 01:07:49 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/227/2015 ORDER University"). In both the group of petitions, public cause sought to be canvassed is that area of about 93587 sq.mts. (hereafter to be referred to as "the land in question") of different survey numbers which were with the University is decided to be entrusted by the government to the Home Department for establishment of District Police Headquarter of Navsari District. The decision is also taken that in exchange of the land in question, other land of Krishi Farm, Vedhchha, located at a distance of about 11 kilometers is to be allotted to the University which may be utilized for the objects of the University.
3. We have heard Mr. B.B. Naik, learned Senior Advocate, appearing with Mr. Riddhesh Trivedi and Mr. A.J. Yagnik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the respective petitions.
4. The contentions raised were that the land belongs to the University, it has very limited area of the land available with the University considering the requirement as per the guidelines issued at national level for Agriculture University, in spite of the same, the said land in question is sought to be entrusted by the government to the Home Department for establishment of the District Police Headquarter. The Vice Chancellor of the University as well as the Minister for Agriculture had objected to the entrustment of the land in question. It was also submitted that the government had earlier suggested to acquire the more Page 2 of 8 HC-NIC Page 2 of 8 Created On Thu Oct 29 01:07:49 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/227/2015 ORDER land for the University. There is acute shortage of the land for functioning of the University. It was submitted that the Vice Chancellor of the University had also addressed a letter to the Home Department of the State Government that the University is in acute shortage of the land and therefore, the land in question may not be entrusted. It was also submitted that the other land which is to be given in exchange of the land in question at Krishi Farm, Vedhchha (Govt. Farm) is not convenient and comfortable for the activities of the University. In the submission of the learned counsel appearing for petitioners in both the petitions, in spite of the resistance by the Vice Chancellor of the University as well as by the Minister for Agriculture, the Chief Minister prevailed over the issue at the instance of the Secretary of the Home Department of the State Government and decided to entrust the land in question to the Home Department for establishment of District Police Headquarters. The contention was that the decision is arbitrary and also without any authority in law inasmuch as when the University itself is the owner of the property, the government cannot entrust the property of the University to another department of the government. It was also submitted that the government could have undertaken the exercise for finding out other places for establishment of District Police Headquarter, may be waste land or any other land, but in any case, the decision making process by the Chief Minister of the State Page 3 of 8 HC-NIC Page 3 of 8 Created On Thu Oct 29 01:07:49 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/227/2015 ORDER overriding the decision of the University and also the Agriculture Minister, is not proper nor the process can be said as unjustified even if one considers that the end purpose is for another public purpose for establishment of District Police Headquarter at Navsari.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions submitted that the agricultural activities in our country are of prime concern and no action should be taken which may adversely affect the agricultural activities in the country. Inspite of that, the decision is taken to take away the land in question which may adversely affect the activities of the University and consequently the agricultural activities, for establishment of the District Police Headquarter at Navsari. In the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions, the process adopted is not transparent and huge public interest would be adversely affected and, therefore, this Court may interfere.
6. It is an undisputed position that the purpose for which the land in question is held by the University for its activities is public purpose and so will be another public purpose that the District Police Headquarter is going to be established by the State Government. In our view, it is always open to the State to utilize its resources including the land available with it, even if the land acquired for "A" public purpose to use such land for "B" public purpose. It is not a matter where the land in question Page 4 of 8 HC-NIC Page 4 of 8 Created On Thu Oct 29 01:07:49 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/227/2015 ORDER is acquired for public purpose but is allotted for any private purpose or for any extraneous considerations. Therefore, as such, per se, when the government has taken decision for entrustment of the land in question by taking it away from its other organ or the University for giving it to the Home Department for establishment of District Police Headquarter, one may gather that there is no adverse effect to the public at large, since use of the land, may be for University or may be for establishment of District Police Headquarter, both are for public purpose. If the matter is considered as it is, to test the adverse effect on the public interest, we do not see that the petitions may meet with that test per se in view of the vital aspect that the land in question is to be used for public purpose and there is no element of any private purpose or any extraneous consideration in the allotment of land.
7. Apart from the above, if the only test is considered of adverse effect on the functioning of the University, then also, we find that when the University is to get the other land in exchange of the land in question, at Krishi Farm, Vedchha which is located at the distance of 11 kilometers, it cannot be said that the University would be at huge loss if the land in question is entrusted by the State Government to the Home Department for establishment of the District Police Headquarter at Navsari. The aforesaid aspect is coupled with the fact as stated in the letter dated 11.2.2015 addressed by the Vice Chancellor of the Page 5 of 8 HC-NIC Page 5 of 8 Created On Thu Oct 29 01:07:49 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/227/2015 ORDER University, copy whereof is annexed at Annexure:P/5 in WP(PIL) No. 228 of 2015 that when the University was established in the year 1965, about 400 hectares of land was acquired. Such would show that the University is having about 400 hectares of land out of which if the land in question is considered for entrustment, it is less than 10 hectares, that is, 1 Lakh sq.mts. When the University is having huge chunk of land and if a portion thereof which is roughly about 2.5% is taken away and used for another purpose, the decision of the State Government cannot be said to be adversely affecting the interest of the University or the activities of the University as sought to be canvassed.
8. The attempt to contend that the government should have taken action for other land or that the government could have decided to establish the District Police Headquarters at other place which is to be given in exchange to the University, namely, Krishi Farm at Vedchha, or any other govt. waste land, in our view, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that such aspects would essentially fall in the domain of the administration of the State Government and this Court may not have the appellate power to re-assess each and every situation and then to record a different opinion.
9. The attempt to challenge the decision making process also, in our view, cannot be countenanced because the decision is taken by the Chief Minister who is the highest authority in the Page 6 of 8 HC-NIC Page 6 of 8 Created On Thu Oct 29 01:07:49 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/227/2015 ORDER administration of the State Government. It is possible that the Minister for Agriculture might have resisted or objected but when the Chief Minister has taken the decision, unless any breach of a statute is satisfactorily demonstrated before this Court, it cannot be said that the decision making process would call for interference.
10. Additionally, attempt made by contending that the University is the owner of the property and not the State Government and, therefore, unless the University agrees to surrender the land or to give the land to the State Government, the power cannot be exercised by the Chief Minister, in our view is on vague premise, inasmuch as the status of land, whether after the acquisition given by the government or ownership vests to the University, are not satisfactorily demonstrated before the Court. Merely because the University is in charge of the administration of the land or that the land is allotted for use of the University, thereby it cannot be presumed that the ownership vests to the University. Under these circumstances, such contention, in our view, is on vague premise which cannot be accepted for interfering with the impugned decision of the government at this stage.
11. Apart from the above, the fact remains that the decision is already implemented, possession of the land in question is already taken over on 11.10.2015. As stated in the panchnama, copy whereof is produced at Annexure:F in the WP(PIL) No. 227 Page 7 of 8 HC-NIC Page 7 of 8 Created On Thu Oct 29 01:07:49 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/227/2015 ORDER of 2015, standing crop is not to be adversely affected and further action is to be taken only after the standing crop of rice- paddy is already cultivated. Therefore, to that extent, it cannot be said that there would be adverse effect to the standing crop over the land in question.
12. In view of the above, we do not find any adverse effect to the public interest as sought to be canvassed. Hence, no case is made out for inference. Therefore, both the petitions are dismissed.
(JAYANT PATEL, ACJ.) (N.V.ANJARIA, J.) pirzada Page 8 of 8 HC-NIC Page 8 of 8 Created On Thu Oct 29 01:07:49 IST 2015