2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 9208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, SJT
GENERAL MANAGER OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP.LTD. – Appellant
Versus
GANDHAR SALT & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES – Respondent
Reserved On : 04/04/2025 Pronounced On : 25/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 185 of 2005 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN Sd/-
and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J. THAKER Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
GENERAL MANAGER,OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP.LTD. & ANR.
Versus GANDHAR SALT & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 MR KRUTIK PARIKH, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3 MR APURVA K. JANI FOR MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Defendant(s)
No. 1 ================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J. THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. The captioned appeal, is directed against the judgment dated 09.09.2004 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bharuch whereby, the Special Civil Suit no.30 of 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit”) filed by the plaintiff, came to be partly decreed and the plaintiff was allowed to recover Rs.19 lacs together with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the suit till its realization from all the defendants, jointly and severally. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original status in the suit.
2. Tersely stated are the facts:
2.1 The plaintiff, a registered partnership firm is engaged in the business under the name and style of “M/s Gandhar Salt & Chemical Industries” and having its manufacturing unit at village Gandhar. The State Govenment – defendant no.3, with a view to developing the District Bharuch, invited various parties to establish the business and trades by providing facilities and benefits. The vast salty khar lands situated on the western coastline of District of taluka Gandhar and Vagra needed development and hence, in view of the scheme of the State Government, the plaintiff surveyed the khar lands and decided to develop the same. The feasibility of the project, was also considered and after following the procedure, the defendant no.3 i.e. the State Government and the defendant no.4 i.e. the Collector, executed the agreement of lease dated 05.05.1980 in favour of the plaintiff. 1500 acres of land of survey nos.316 to 321 of Gandhar taluka of Vaghra (hereinafter referred to as “the leased land”) was carved out and leased to the plaintiff for the purpose of manufacturing of salt and chemicals for the period of 20 years. The plaintiff, was put in possession and thereafter, the plaintiff, pumped in capital expenditure and by the year 1987, an amount of Rs.59,07,939/- was invested.
2.2 According to the petitioner, initially, the plaintiff, started developing water pans in the year 1983-1984 on the southern side for the area of 650 acres. The plaintiff, thereafter, started the development work of rest of 850 acres of land on the northern side by infusing full capital investment and by 31.03.1987, the full capacity project was ready.
2.3 It is the further case of the plaintiff, that the defendant nos.1 and 2, started its operation of oil exploration in the year 1986 in the Gandhar area. The grievance of the plaintiff, was that the defendant nos.1 and 2 with the help of defendant nos.3 and 4, illegally entered into the lands of the plaintiff and started constructing the roads and by-roads which, resulted into division of the leased lands into two portions, namely, 650 acres on the southern side which was fully developed and 850 acres on the northern side which was developing. The construction of the east-west road by the defendant nos.1 and 2 was completed in the year 1987 causing major damage to the production pro