IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.
M/S Sajan Rice And Pulse Mill & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3196 of 2022 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2023 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3196 of 2022
Decided on : 15-07-2024
Lease - Industrial Land - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The court emphasized the rights of lessees under perpetual leases and the necessity for proper acquisition procedures, ruling against unilateral actions by the GIDC.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, industrial units, challenged GIDC's attempt to reduce their leased plots for railway expansion without proper acquisition procedures, asserting their rights under valid leases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the GIDC's actions were illegal and arbitrary, violating the terms of the leases and the statutory acquisition process, thus protecting the petitioners' rights.
Issues: Whether the GIDC could unilaterally reduce the leased land area for railway expansion without following proper acquisition procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the GIDC's unilateral action violated the terms of the leases and the statutory requirements for land acquisition, affirming the lessees' rights.
Result: The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the GIDC's orders and affirming the petitioners' rights to their leased plots.
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. The instant petition has been filed by a group of petitioners, which are industrial units carrying on business on various plots allotted by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC). The plots allotted to the petitioners in GIDC Estate at Dabhoi are adjacent to the narrow gauge Miyagam Karjan-Dabhoi-Samalaya railway line.
2. The prayers made in the Writ petition are to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take possession of Plot Nos. 4, 24, 35/B, 50, 36, 49, 37 at Dabhoi GIDC Estate in Vadodara (allotted to the petitioners herein) for the purpose of conversion of the above railway line from narrow gauge to broad gauge. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed not to acquire the aforesaid plots without treating the petitioners as persons interested in such lands. A further prayer is to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the Corrigendum Order dated 17.05.2023 issued by the respondent GIDC has also been sought.
3. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners are lawful allottees of the industrial plots in the industrial estate and the allotments have been made on various dates starting from the year 1981 onwards. The lease deeds have been registered. With GIDC vide Corrigendum Order dated 17.05.2023, the GIDC has intimated the petitioners that their plot size would be reduced, inasmuch as, a portion of their plots are required for the project of Railways for conversion of narrow gauge to broad gauge of Miyagam Karjan-Dabhoi- Samalaya railway line.
4. The submission is that the petitioners have invested their savings in such plots allotted and have arranged their business, made investments and earned goodwill on the lands of the area leased to the petitioners. The leases in favour of the petitioners are permanent leases for 99 years and the petitioners have been given an option to purchase the lease lands as the GIDC has a policy for converting the lease hold rights to absolute ownership. It is, thus, not open for the GIDC to terminate the leases before completion of the lease period as the petitioners have never violated any terms and conditions of the lease deeds and have paid entire consideration for execution of the lease deeds. The reduction in the plot area results in unilateral amendment to the concluded contracts and results in termination of the lease to the extent of the area sought to be deducted.
5. It was argued by Ms.Megha Jani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners that such an action of GIDC is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, high-handed and impermissible. The GIDC while executing the lease deed is a 'lessor' and under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it is not open for the lessor to modify the terms and conditions of the lease deed by reducing the land area, unilaterally. Admittedly, no proceedings for acquisition of the lands required for the project of Railways has been carried out under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short as "the Act' 2013") or under the Railways Act, 1989. It was urged that in the event the land in question is acquired under any of the statutory land acquisition provisions, the petitioners have a statutory right to be considered as persons interested in the acquired land to claim for fair compensation, and to further challenge the determination of compensation and even acquisition, if any.
6. The respondent State Authorities specifically the office of the Collector, Vadodara and GIDC are acting in an absolute highhanded manner, misusing their authority in a bid to evict the petitioners from the portion of the plots given to them on lease of 99 years. A copy of one of such lease deed appended at page 20' of the paper book has been placed before us to demonstrate that as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed, in consideration of the amount (indicate
Co. Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur vs. Bihari Lal [(1994) 4 SCC 523
Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri [AIR 1955 SC 298]
Inder Prashad vs Union Of India [1994 SCC (5) 239]
AI
The court established that lessees have enduring rights under perpetual leases, and any acquisition must follow due process as per statutory requirements.
The main legal point established is that the petitioner's failure to demonstrate reclamation and payment of lease rent as per the lease conditions resulted in the rightful transfer of possession to t....
The court upheld that land acquisition for public purpose, as defined under the Land Acquisition Act, was valid despite petitioners' claims of private benefit and procedural violations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceedings would not lapse even if the award was passed after the prescribed period under Section 11A, and the relocation pol....
Land Acquisition - Process of acquisition was completed way back in the year 1987-88. The petitioners have even received the compensation and did not raise any objection immediately thereafter. They ....
Point of law: when once the proceedings are completed, the question of application of Section 101 of Act No. 30 of 2013 does not arise.
Point of Law : In case there is no other public purpose for which the land was needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to dispose of the industrial plots should have been taken collectively by the Board of Directors of the GIDC, and not by the Vice....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.