Gujarat High Court
B K Industrial Corporation vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 25 February, 2015
Author: Ks Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri
C/LPA/536/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 536 of 2014
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 357 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4886 of 2014
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 536 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
===========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
================================================================
B K INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION....Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. HARSHEEL SHUKLA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 4
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
Page 1 of 6
C/LPA/536/2014 JUDGMENT
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 25/02/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. The present appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellantoriginal petitioner against the order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.357 of 2014, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition.
2. The facts of this case are that by order dated 01.06.1989, the appellant was alloted a piece of land for industrial purpose by the Collector, Rajkot on certain terms and conditions. On 13.12.2011, the appellant made an application to the District Collector, Rajkot to permit him to sell the said plot on whatever terms and conditions, the authority may impose. Pursuant to the said application, the Deputy Collector, Rajkot, inquired into the matter and found that the appellant had committed breach of conditions and had permitted others persons to use part of the land. Therefore, the Deputy Collector, Rajkot initiated suo motu proceedings under section 79 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code by issuing show cause notice. 2.1. After hearing the appellant and after considering the report submitted by the Mamlatdar, it was found that the appellant had committed a breach of conditions on which the land was alloted to Page 2 of 6 C/LPA/536/2014 JUDGMENT him. Therefore, the respondentauthority vide order dated 06.09.2012 ordered to confiscate the land and to mutate in the name of the Government. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed a petition being Special Civil application No. 357 of 2014 before this court. This Court vide impugned order dated 17.02.2014 dismissed the said petition. Hence, this appeal.
3. Mr. Mangukiya, learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the contention that if there is a breach of the condition of the Sanad, the State Government cannot exercise its revisionary powers and has to file a Civil Suit to get the remedy was not raised before the learned Single Judge. He however, submitted that it was still open for the appellant to raise it before this bench since the submission pertains to a question of fact. In order to show that the appellant can raise such submission before this Bench, he placed relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and Others vs. Manju Jain and Others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 157.
3.1. Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the State Government could not have cancelled the Sanad in exercise of revisionary powers. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decisions of this Court as well as the Bombay High Court: Page 3 of 6 C/LPA/536/2014 JUDGMENT
(i) In the case of Patel Raghav V Natha v. G.F. Mankodi, Commissioner, Rajkot Division and Others, reported in 1965 (4) GLR page 34;
(ii) In the case of the Government of Bombay v.
Mathurdas Laljibhai Gandhi, reported in 1941 (XLIV), BLR, page 405;
(iii) In the case of Sambhaji Baloji Solankar v. The Mamlatdar of Baramati, reported in 1952 (LV) BLR page 281;
(iv) In the case of Govind Murji Patel (Kerai) & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors, reported in 2007(1) GLR 671;
(v) In the case of Rameshchandra Kanji Joshi v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2002(1) GLH, 84.
4. On the other hand, learned AGP appearing for the respondentState supported the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. He submitted that the learned Single Judge after appreciating the material on record has passed the impugned order, therefore, this Court may dismiss this appeal and confirm the order of the learned Single Judge.
Page 4 of 6
C/LPA/536/2014 JUDGMENT
5. We have heard Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Shukla, learned AGP for the respondentState and perused the material on record. We have also perused the impugned order of the leaned Single Judge. Without entering to the nicety of law and without creating a larger issue, we allow learned advocate for the appellant to raise the issue before us. The learned advocate for the appellant by relying upon the decisions of the Bombay High Court as well as this Court has raised the contention that if there is a breach of the conditions of the Sanad, the State Government cannot exercise its revisionary powers and has to file a Civil Suit to get the remedy. Having gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant, it was found that the said decisions do not come to the rescue of the appellant, inasmuch as in the aforesaid decisions the issue was with regard to change of terms and conditions in the Sanad. However, in the present case, the issue pertains to breach of terms and conditions of the Sanad. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellant is without merit. Further, it appears from the record that the land in question was alloted to the appellant in the year 1989 for the industrial purposes. However, the appellant was not put any construction on the land till the proceedings were initiated after 19 years. It also appears that the appellant has filed the Civil Suit against third party only after Mamlatdar visited the place and prepared the report. Page 5 of 6
C/LPA/536/2014 JUDGMENT
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge is completely justified in dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
7. Since the main appeal is dismissed, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (A.G.URAIZEE,J) Pawan Page 6 of 6