Back
Supreme Court of India
H.L. GOKHALE & J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.
Dipak Babaria & Another
Versus
State of Gujarat & Others
Civil Appeal No. 836 of 2014 (@ Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36738 of 2012)
Decided On : 23-01-2014
(b) Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Areas) Act, 1958 - Sections 89 and 89A - Procedures prescribed not followed - Respondent 4 informing Collector about his intention to dispose of the land to prospective purchaser - In such an event the statute required Collector to act in a particular manner and the land had to be dealt in that particular manner only, and in no other manner - However, Collector was not permitted to apply his mind, make enquiries and take decision - Instead, decision was thrusted by the Minister without justifiable reasons - Powers of the statutory authority have been exercised by the Government which is an appellate authority - If the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, it has got to be done in that way and by no other different manner (Para 54, 55)
(1875) 1 Ch D 426; AIR 1936 PC 253; AIR 1954 SC 322; AIR 1964 SC 358; (1999) 8 SCC 266; (2001) 4 SCC 9; (2008) 4 SCC 755 - Relied upon
(2012) 3 SCC 1; (2011) 6 SCC 508; (2012) 10 SCC 1; (1980) 4 SCC 1; (1986) 1 SCC 581; (1996) 5 SCC 14 - Referred
(c) Administration of Justice - Judicial Propriety - Government action - Government must defend its action on the basis of the order that it has passed - It cannot improve its stand by filing subsequent affidavits - State Government which is appellate authority converting itself into the statutory authority - Not permissible - Attempt to justify State action on the ground of having overall control over entire State in terms of section 126 of Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Areas) Act, 1958 - Power under Section 126 can be utilized for giving general guidelines, but not for interference or giving directions in individual cases - Action not permissible. (Para 57, 58)
AIR 1952 SC 16; (1978) 1 SCC 405; AIR 1966 SC 1081 - Relied upon
(d) Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Areas) Act, 1958 - Section 89 and 89A - Sale inter se parties - Neither contemplated nor permitted. (Para 59)
(e) Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Areas) Act, 1958 - Section 89 - Prohibiting sale of agricultural land except for bona fide industrial use - Tenancy Act being special Act, shall prevail over provisions of Transfer of Property Act being general Act. (Para 60)
(1996) 5 SCC 281 - Referred
(f) Administrative Law - State dictating the statutory authority Collector to pass orders - Not permissible. (Para 61)
(1995) 5 SCC 302 - Relied upon
(g) Administrative Law - Minister overruling administrative advice - Dictating statutory authority to act in a particular manner - No justifiable reason recorded - Not permissible. (Para 62 to 64)
AIR 2001 SC 2524 - Relied upon
(1984) 4 SCC 316; (2012) 3 SCC 619; (2005) 7 SCC 605; (1992) 1 SCC 534; 1983 (1) All ER 765; (2007) 10 SCC 528; (2010) 4 SCC 192 - Referred
Facts of the case:
Indigold Refinery Ltd. which is a company having its office in Mumbai, purchased eight parcels of land owned by one Virji Jivraj Patel and Jayaben Virji Patel residing at Bankers Colony, Bhuj, admeasuring in all 39 acres and 25 gunthas (i.e. roughly 40 acres) by eight sale deeds all dated 30.1.2003 for a consideration of about Rs.70 lakhs. The land was purchased for industrial purpose and necessary certificate was obtained from the Collector.
After five years, having failed to set up the industry Indigold Refinery sought permission from the Dy. Collector to sell the land. The permission was granted.
Accordingly the land was sold and conveyed to Respondent no. 5.
The transaction was challenged being violative of section 89 of the Tenancy Act.
The writ petition was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The direction of the State Government dated 18.12.2009 and the consequent order issued by the Collector of Kutch on 15.1.2010 is arbitrary, and bad in law for being in violation of the scheme and the provisions of Sections 89 and 89A of the Tenancy Act. The direct sale of land by Indigold to Alumina is also held to be bad in law, and inoperative.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
Judgment :-
H.L. Gokhale J.
Leave Granted.
2. This appeal by Special Leave seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 30.8.2012 rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing Writ Petition (PIL) No.44 of 2012 filed by the appellants herein. The Writ Petition had various prayers, but essentially it sought to challenge the permission granted by the Collector, Bhuj, to sell certain parcels of agricultural land situated in district Kutch, which were said to have been purchased earlier by the respondent No.4 herein, one Indigold Refinery Limited of Mumbai, for industrial purpose in favour of respondent No.5 i.e. one Alumina Refinery Limited, Navi Mumbai, as being impermissible under the provisions of the Gujarat (earlier ‘Bombay’ prior to the amendment in its application in the State of Gujarat) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Areas) Act, 1958 (Tenancy Act, 1958 for short). It was submitted that under Section 89A of this Act, agricultural land can be permitted to be sold by an agriculturist to another person for industrial purpose provided the proposed user is bona- fide. In the event, the land is not so utilised by such a person for such purpose, within the period as stipulated under the act, the Collector of the concerned district has to make an enquiry under sub-Section 5 thereof, give an opportunity to the purchaser with a view to ascertain the factual situation, and thereafter pass an order that the land shall vest in the State Government on payment of an appropriate compensation to the purchaser which the Collector may determine. It was contended that there was no provision for any further transfer of agricultural land from one industrial purchaser to any third party, once again, for industrial purpose when the first purchaser of agricultural land had defaulted in setting up the industry. Apart from being in breach of the law, the transaction was stated to be against public interest, and a mala-fide one resulting into a serious loss to the public exchequer. The Writ Petition criticised the role of the Collector and the Revenue Minister of the State Government, and sought an inquiry against them in the present case, and also a direction to the state authorities to resume the concerned land.
3. The impugned judgment and order rejected the said writ petition on two grounds, firstly that there was delay in initiating the said Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and that the writ petitioner had suppressed the material facts before the Court concerning the investment claimed to have been made by the respondent No.5.
4. The writ petition, and now this appeal raise the issues with respect to the underlying policy and purpose behind the relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act, 1958. In that connection, it also raises the issue with respect to the duties of the revenue officers on the spot, such as the Collector, the importance of the role of senior administrative officers of the State Government, and whether a Minister of the Government can direct the administrative officers and the Collector to act contrary to the provisions and policy of the statute. The Secretary of the Department of Revenue of the Government of Gujarat, and the Collector of District Kutch at Bhuj are joined as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to this appeal.
The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:-
5. It is pointed out by the appellants that the respondent No.4 Indigold Refinery Ltd. (Indigold for short) which is a company having its office in Mumbai, purchased eight parcels of land owned by one Virji Jivraj Patel and Jayaben Virji Patel residing at Bankers Colony, Bhuj, admeasuring in all 39 acres and 25 gunthas (i.e. roughly 40 acres) by eight sale deeds all dated 30.1.2003, for a consideration of about Rs.70 lakhs. These eight sale deeds are supposed to have been signed for respondent No.4 Indigold by one Hanumantrao
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
