2014 Supreme(Guj) 34

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale & Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar
Dipak Babaria & Anr.
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 836 of 20141—Decided on 23/01/2014

Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts of the case permission by Govt. for sale of land by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 5 Sustainable.

Headnote:Head Note :

       Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidharbha Region and Kutch Areas) Act, 1958 — Sections 89, 89-A, 89(3)(c)(1), 89-A(5) — Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 — Section 65-B — Sale of agricultural land to Respondent No. 4 — Industrial purpose — Further transfer of Land for same purpose by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 5 — Grant of permission of sale by Government — Propriety of Government sanction in view of provisions under the Act — Finding of — In view of the scheme of the Act the process of Industrialisation must take place in accordance there with — If the Law requires a particular thing should be done in a particular manner it must be done in that way and non-other — In the instant case when Respondent No. 4 expressed his inability to put land under industrial development, State ought to have acquired the said land and then either by auction or by considering the merit of the proposal of respondent No. 5 allotted it to him — Even if the application of respondent No. 5 was for a bona fide purpose the same had to be examined by the industrial commissioner to begin with and thereafter it should have gone to the Collector — The minimum that was required was an enquiry at the level of Collector who is statutory authority — Dictating him as in the case to act in a particular manner by Minister that it is in the interest of the industrial development leads to breach of the mandate of the statute framed by legislature — The case clearly suffers from dereliction of duty by Collector and dictation of Minister shows nothing but arrogance of power — The High Court has also erred in over looking the legal position in it’s impugned judgment — Court having noted the legal position and the factual scenario set aside the judgment and order passed by High Court and passed consequential judgment and order.

       Held :

       The land which was purchased by Respondent No. 4 for Rs. 70 lakhs is permitted by the Government of Gujarat to be sold directly to Respondent No. 5 at Rs. 1.20 crores to set up an industry which could not have been done legally. It is undoubtedly not a case of loss of hundreds of crores as claimed by the appellants, but certainly a positive case of a loss of a few crores by the public exchequer by not going for public auction of the concerned property. It is true as pointed out by Mr. Venugopal, learned senior Counsel that in a given case the state may invite an entrepreneur and give an offer. However, in the instant case, the sale of the land for industrial purpose is controlled by the statutory provisions, and the State was bound to act as per the requirements of the statute. The minister’s direction as seen from the record clearly indicates an arbitrary exercise of power. The orders passed by the Government cannot therefore be sustained. As seen earlier, there is neither a power nor a justification to make any special case, in favour of the Respondent No 5. Such exceptions may open floodgates for similar applications and orders, even though the Gujarat Government is contending that this order is purportedly not to be treated as a precedent. [Para 63]

       Considering the scheme of the act, the process of industrialization must take place in accordance therewith. As stated earlier if the law requires a particular thing should be done in a particular manner it must be done in that way and none other. The State cannot ignore the policy intent and the procedure contemplated by the statute. In the instant case, the State could have acquired the land, and then either by auction or by considering the merit of the proposal of Respondent No. 5 allotted it to Respondent No. 5. Assuming that the application of the Respondent No. 5 was for a bona-fide purpose, the same had to be examined by the industrial commissioner, to begin with, and thereafter it should have gone to the collector. After the property vests in the Government, even if there were other bidders to the property, the collector could have considered the merits and the bona-fides of the application of Respondent No. 5, and nothing would have prevented him from following the course which is permissible under the law. It is not merely the end but the means which are of equal importance, particularly if they are enshrined in the legislative scheme. The minimum that was required was an enquiry at the level of the Collector who is the statutory authority. Dictating him to act in a particular manner on the assumption by the Minister that it is in the interest of the industrial development would lead to a breach of the mandate of the statute framed by the legislature. The Ministers are not expected to act in this manner and therefore, this particular route through the corridors of the Ministry, contrary to the statute, cannot be approved. The present case is clearly one of dereliction of his duties by the Collector and dictation by the Minister, showing nothing but arrogance of power. [Para 64]

       Having noted the legal position and the factual scenario, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court will have to be set aside. The prayers in the PIL will have to be entertained to hold that 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 89-A of the Tenancy Act. The direct sale of land by Indigold to Alumina is also held to be bad in law, and inoperative. [Para 68]

       Law Laid Down :

       If the Law required a particular thing should be done in a particular manner it must be done in that way and non-other.