IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12733 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

M/S ANCHOR DAEWOO INDUSTRIES LTD Versus SPECIAL SECRETARY ( APPEALS ) & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ADITA PATHAK, APG for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Date : 12/03/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT

1) By way of filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

‘’(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.03.2018 passed in Revision Application No. MVV/GANOT/KUTCH/01/2017 as well as order dated 7/1/2017 passed by the Collector, Kutch and further be pleased to restore the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar and ALT dated 21.09.2015 passed by the learned Mamlatdar and ALT;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to hold and declare that order passed by the learned District Collector confirmed by the learned SSRD are illegal, arbitrary, devoid of merits and passed in contravention to the provisions of Section 89 and 89A of the Act, 1958;

(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the order dated 28.03.2018 passed in Revision Application No. MVV/GANOT/KUTCH/01/2017 as well as order dated 7/1/2017 passed by the Collector, Kutch and further be pleased to restrain the authority – Mamlatdar and ALT from initiating proceedings under Section 122 of the Act for alleged breach of Section 89 as per the order passed by the learned District Collector;

(D) During the pendency and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner and further be pleased to restrain the respondent authority from taking any action which would hamper the ongoing industrial activity undertaken by the petitioner and further be pleased to direct the District Collector to process the application under Section 65-B of the BLRC without being influenced by the present proceedings;

(E) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.’’

2) The case of the petitioner can be summarised in a nutshell as under:

2.1) On 18.09.2002, M/s. Anchor Kenwood Enterprise purchased the property in question from the original owner, Bharatbhai Karsanbhai Tank, by way of executing a registered sale deed. Pursuant thereto, Revenue Entry No. 2004 came to be mutated in the revenue record and was subsequently certified on 23.01.2003. Thereafter, Anchor Kenwood Enterprise, Propreitary concern of S.D. Family Trust, transferred the said land in favour of Anchor Electronics Limited by executing the necessary transfer documents. Pursuant to the said transaction, Revenue Entry No. 2093 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 14.06.2003. Subsequently, the said company preferred an application before the competent authority stating that the name of the company had been amended and, therefore, the said amenment was required to be reflected in the revenue record. Accordingly, the name of the company was amended to Anchor Daewoo Industries Limited, and the corresponding entry was mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No. 2167. Thereafter, the petitioner company preferred an application before the competent authority seeking permission for bona fide industrial purpose with retrospective effect. The said applica