Bharatbhai Babulal Shah vs State Of Gujarat And Other(s)

A.J. Desai, J

Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents.

With consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

By way of present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed as under:

"[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the present Special Civil Application.

[B] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the respondent No. 1 - Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department in Revision Application No. 35 of 2010 and order dated 24.06.2010 passed by the Ld. Collector being Respondent No. 2 as all these orders are absolutely illegal, unlawful, contrary to the facts and evidence on record, against the settled principles of law, equity and justice;

[C] During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution and implementation and operation of order 09.03.2016 passed by the respondent No. 1 - Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department in Revision Application No. 35 of 2010 and order dated 24.06.2010 passed by the Ld. Collector."

The short facts arise from the record are as under:

4.1. That a piece of land was granted to the petitioner on lease by an order dated 08.07.1977 for a period of 30 years to carry out industrial activities on certain terms and conditions, which are referred in the order.

4.2. The petitioner made an application dated 17.02.2006 for renewal of the lease deed, which was to expire on 31.07.2006. Instead of renewal of the lease deed, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 05.01.2010 by the District Collector, District Kutch on the ground that there is breach of condition No. 14 i.e. the petitioner did not start industrial activities within a period of 2 years from the date of the order. The petitioner replied to the said notice issued by the District Collector, District Kutch on 27.01.2010. However, the order of confiscation the land came to be passed by the District Collector, District Kutch on 24.06.2010, which came to be challenged before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department by way of filing Revision Application 35 of 2010. By impugned order dated 09.03.2016, the revision application came to be rejected by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department.

4.3. Hence, this petition.

Mr. D.K. Puj, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that a notice dated 05.01.2010 was issued by the District Collector, District Kutch to the petitioner for breach of Condition No. 14. As per Condition No. 14, the petitioner had to start industrial activities within a period of 2 years from the date of allotment of the land. Accordingly, the petitioner started industrial activities, which continued upto 2001. The land is situated in the Bhuj City, District Kutch. Pursuant to devastated earthquake in the State of Gujarat in the year 2001 and the most affected area was Bhuj City, District Kutch, the machinery of the petitioner was damaged in the earthquake and therefore, the petitioner could not continue with the industrial activities. However, though the petitioner has shown readiness and willingness to carry out the same industrial activities again, however, the said aspect has not been considered by the authorities below.

Learned advocate would further submit that the revenue authority has committed grave error in observing in the impugned order that no material was produced by the petitioner in support of the case that the petitioner has used the said land for the industrial purpose upto 2001, though, the petitioner has produced sufficient material to establish the case. He, therefore, would submit that the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded for fresh consideration.

Ms. Divyangna Jhala, learned Assistant Government for the respondent authorities, opposed this petition. She would submit that appropriate order may be passed.

I have heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent authorities.

It appears from the record that by an order dated 08.07.1977, a piece of parcel of land was granted to the petitioner for carrying out industrial activities on lease for a period of 30 years on certain terms and conditions. As per condition No. 14, the petitioner had to take possession of the land and had to start construction within a period of six months and had to start industrial activities within a period of two years. It is an undisputed fact that upto 2010, the District Collector has not issued notice on the ground that no industrial activities was carried by the petitioner subsequent to such allotment. However, when the petitioner had applied for renewal of the lease deed with regard to the land, a notice was issued. Apart from this aspect, the petitioner had produced sufficient material before the concerned authority below about industrial activities carried out by him and under what circumstances, he could not continue with the industrial activities after the devastated earthquake in the year 2001. Considering the above aspects, I am of the opinion that the following order would meet the end of justice:

[i] The impugned order dated 09.03.2016 in Revision Application No. 35 of 2010 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department is hereby quashed and set aside.

[ii] The matter is remanded to the Special Secretary, Revenue Department for fresh consideration.

[iii] The Revision Application No. 35 of 2010 is revived to its original file.

[iv] The petitioner shall appear before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and shall produce necessary documents in support of the case.

[v] The Special Secretary, Revenue Department shall decide the revision application as early as possible without being influenced by the observations made in the earlier order as well as this order.

With the above direction, present petition stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.