SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 680

2004(5) Supreme 389
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI & Ashok Bhan, J.
M/s. Rajureshwar Associates -Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8539 of 2002
Decided on 5-7-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.F. Nariman, Sr. Advocate, Sanjay V. Kharde, Ajit B. Kale, Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Uday Umesh Lalit, Ms. Arpita Singh, Prasenjit Keswani, S.S. Shinde, Mukesh K. Giri, T. Mahipal, Advocates.

Headnote:Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966-Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971-Rules 2(k-i), 15 and 16-Land granted by Revenue and Forest Department of State Government to Aurangabad Zilla Sahakari Soot Ginni Ltd. (Mill)-Conditions of grant that the mill shall not transfer the said land without prior permission of the Government-Land and buildings thereon were liable to be resumed in case of breach of any conditions-In course of time, buildings were erected on 5 acres of land out of 48 acres-Mill started conducting its business-Order of resumption since the mill violated terms and conditions of grant in its favour-Land was attached and taken in possession by the Government-Liquidator invited tenders for selling the entire land-Tender submitted by appellant accepted-Appellant paid the amount and requested for execution of sale deed-State Government took a decision to cancel the agreement executed in favour of appellant on ground that the price offered by him was less than the actual price-Writ petition-When offer of appellant was received, no valuation of the land had been got done-Whether final decision taken by the Government to cancel agreement of sale can be invalidated-(No)-Order of refund of amount with simple interest @ 11 p.a.

       Held : When the offer of the appellant was received, no valuation of the land had been got done. The Liquidator could not have invited tenders for the entire land as out of 43 acres 12 gunthas, 38 acres 12 gunthas had been attached by the Collector on 18.12.1997 and taken possession of by the government leaving only 5 acres of land on which buildings had been erected. Initial decision was to sell 5 acres of land along with the building and machinery standing thereon. The Revenue department as well as the Finance department had not agreed for the sale of the entire land. The decision was taken by the textile department including its Minister to sell the entire land and the matter was required to be placed before the Cabinet and in the absence of any proper sanction the government had the power to cancel the same especially when it was of the opinion that the price of Rs. 7,81,33,000/- offered by the appellant was under valuation of the property. The High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the State Government did not, at any time, give approval for the sale or disposal of the subject land as was claimed by communication. (Para 49)

       The High Court has taken care to give adequate compensation to the appellant for any hardship or prejudice occasioned to the appellant. The High Court has ordered the refund of the amount with simple interest @ 11 p.a. The appellant had deposited Rs. 781.33 lacs on different dates. As per order of the High Court the amount of Rs. 781.33 lacs was refunded to the appellant on three different dates. This Court in its order dated 16.12.2002 directed that the draft given by the respondents to the appellant after the decision of the High Court be returned by the appellant to the respondents and the respondents were directed to keep the amount in the interest bearing account. In order to iron out any dispute as to the repayment of the amount and the interest thereon it is directed that the Government would be liable to refund the amount to the appellant along with simple interest @ 11 per annum for the period during which the amount remained with it within a period of four months from the date of this judgment. (Para 50)

       

JUDGMENT

Bhan, J.-This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 24.4.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 5219 of 2001. By the impugned order the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

2. Appellant is an Associate registered under the Indian Partnership Act for the purpose of carrying on the business of purchase and sale of agricultural land, to develop the lands and construct buildings by taking contracts under Government and of private parties. It also deals as commission agent in real estates.

3. Land admeasuring 48 acres 24 gunthas of Survey No. 55 was granted by the Revenue and Forest Department of the State Government to Aurangabad Zilla Sahakari Soot Ginni Ltd. ( Mill for short) on conditions inter alia that the mill shall not transfer the said land without prior permission of the Government and that the land and buildings thereon would be liable to be resumed in case of breach of any conditions. Some of the relevant terms and conditions of the grant were as under:

"v) That, the Sut Girni shall not transfer its rights in the land to anybody by sale lease, mortgage etc. without prior permission of Government. Further, the land shall not be transferred by the Sut Girni to a foreigner except a foreigner domiciled in India, or a foreign firm established or trading in India, without the consent of Government which will have full discretion to refuse without assigning any reasons.

vi) That the land and the Sut Girni buildings to be constructed thereon shall be used for the purpose for which the grant is made and for no other purpose.

vii) That the Sut Girni buildings to be constructed shall comply with the provisions of Ribbon Development Rules in force.

viii) That the land and the building thereon shall be liable to be resumed to Government without payment of compensation for breach of any of the conditions."

4. In course of time, buildings were erected on 5 acres of land out of 48 acres and 24 gunthas and the mill started conducting its business. Out of the aforesaid land of 48 acres and 24 gunthas, 3 acres and 12 gunthas was withdrawn and given over to the Municipal Corporation for widening of the road. Two acres of land was withdrawn by the District Collector and kept under Government account and recovered the non-agricultural land revenue by sale of the same leaving 43 acres and 12 gunthas with the mill.

5. Since the mill had violated the terms and conditions of grant in its favour, on 18.12.1997, 38 acres and 12 gunthas of land was attached and taken in possession by the Government leaving 5 acres of land on which buildings had been erected. On 22.7.1998, Co-operation & Textiles Department of the State Government proposed to sell 5 acres of land with buildings thereon.

6. The total liability had accumulated to around Rs. 14 crores and no funds were available with the Spinning Mill for clearing the said liabilities. Liquidator was appointed on the Spinning Mill under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Spinning Mill through the Liquidator submitted a proposal to the Government through the Director of Handloom, Powerloom and Co-operative Textiles (hereinafter referred to as the respondent No.2 ) for allowing the Spinning Mill to dispose of its building, plant, machinery and land. After obtaining permission from respondent No.2, the Liquidator by publication dated 8.10.1998 invited tenders from the bidders for selling the property of the Spinning Mill situated in Survey No. 55 including the land. The Liquidator instead of inviting offers for 5 acres of land on which the buildings had been constructed, invited offers for sale of entire land of 43 acres 11 gunthas treating it to be the property of the mill.

7. M/s. Rajureshwar Associates - appellants herein, in response to the proclamation issued by the Liquidator, submitted the tender quoting th



















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top