The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has quashed a revenue authority order that attempted to reopen a three-decade-old land re-grant claim, providing legal certainty to Reliance Industries Limited regarding its Special Economic Zone (SEZ) project in Jamnagar. Justice Devan M. Desai allowed the petition filed by the company, ruling that the persistent failure to challenge the cancellation of the original land grant in 1972 rendered the subsequent re-grant application filed in 2005 legally untenable due to gross delay and laches.

The controversy centered on approximately nine acres of land in Navagam village, which was originally granted for agricultural cultivation in 1962. Following an investigation by the Deputy Collector of Jamnagar, the grant was cancelled in 1972 because the original allottee, a predecessor-in-title to the current respondent, failed to fulfill the fundamental condition of cultivating the land within two years. This cancellation was recorded in the revenue register as "waste land" and remained unchallenged by the allottee for over thirty years.

In 2008, the state government allotted the land to Reliance Industries as part of a larger tract meant for an industrial SEZ. The company paid the required consideration and commenced substantial infrastructure development. However, in 2005, the legal heirs of the original allottee had approached the collector seeking a re-grant. While the Collector of Jamnagar rejected the application in 2006 citing the significant passage of time, the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), later set aside that decision and ordered a remand for fresh consideration, prompting the legal battle that reached the High Court.

Finality of Administrative Decisions The High Court emphasized that the order of cancellation had attained finality, noting that the original allottee had sufficient opportunity to contest the decision during his lifetime. The Court rejected the argument that the delay was excusable due to a lack of communication from the authorities. As stated in the judgment, “The order of cancellation of grant attained finality in absence of any challenge made by the predecessor-in-title of respondent No. 3 during his lifetime.”

Furthermore, the Bench observed that the respondents failed to produce any evidence confirming that the original allottee had actually taken possession of the land or initiated agricultural operations within the two-year deadline. The Court criticized the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), for relying on bare assertions of possession rather than objective evidence. Justice Desai pointed out that the appellate authority had “miserably failed to appreciate the long delay of 33 years in making a request for re-grant.”

Impact of Industrial Development The ruling also addressed the legal significance of the land’s current use. The Court highlighted that the government resolution dated January 3, 1984, mandated that re-grant requests should not be entertained when land has remained under state ownership for an extended duration, increased in market value, or acquired non-agricultural utility. By failing to account for this resolution, the appellate revenue authority had ignored established policies intended to discourage stale claims on state-owned land.

The Court also addressed the argument that ongoing civil litigation affected the validity of the industrial allotment. It noted that the related civil suit, initiated by the respondents to challenge the SEZ, had been dismissed for non-prosecution in 2010. Consequently, there were no subsisting judicial injunctions to hinder the government’s transfer of land to the company. The Court observed that the appellate authority had given undue weight to conditional clauses in the allotment letter, which were intended to account for pre-existing rights, but which did not apply where no such rights had been established.

The judgment clarifies that an industrial project of national importance, such as an SEZ, cannot be jeopardized by claims resurrected after decades of inaction. By setting aside the remand order, the High Court has effectively restored the status quo existing prior to the revenue authority’s intervention. The petitioner, having fulfilled its contractual obligations to the state, remains in secure possession of the land, as the order of the Jamnagar Collector stands upheld.

The decision serves as a stern reminder regarding the importance of the principle of laches in land revenue matters. The Court concluded that the attempt to revive the grant after three decades not only lacked merit but threatened to disrupt established administrative and commercial activities. With the High Court’s order, the administrative process concerning the land in Navagam village has reached a definitive conclusion.