Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Karmabhoomi Enterprise on 30 April, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/601/2020 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 601 of 2020
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7503 of 2016
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
KARMABHOOMI ENTERPRISE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. MAITHILI MEHTA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR. S.N.SOPARKAR, SR. ADV. WITH MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. MRUGESH A BAROT(6709) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 30/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) Heard Ms. Hetal Patel, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, for the appellant State.
2. Learned senior advocate Mr. S.N.Soparkar assisted by learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit appeared for the respondent.
3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.03.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in noticing that though in the allotment order dated 07.06.2008, there was a condition of completion of the construction within a period of two years and for setting up the industry, however, there was a Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 21:34:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/601/2020 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025 undefined Government Resolution dated 06.06.2003, whereunder the defaulter is liable to pay penalty to the tune of 20 times of the assessment for the first breach, and for the second breach, the defaulter is required to pay 50 times of the assessment of the land revenue. It was noted by the learned single Judge that the petitioner was not given opportunity to take shelter under the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 06.06.2003 before passing the order impugned dated 24.08.2011 by the Collector of forfeiting the land- in-question and vesting it with the State Government on the breach of Section 79A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. It was further noted by the learned single Judge in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 as under :-
"10. It is also not in dispute that after the petitioner filed a reply to the show-cause notice on 19.07.2010, and between the period i.e. 19.07.2010 i.e. the reply filed by the petitioner seeking extension and passing of the impugned order dated 24.08.2011 by the Collector, the petitioner had already completed the construction and also installed the concerned machinery and are carrying the industrial activities.
11. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has paid full consideration equivalent to the market price of the land in question as determined by the District Land Valuation Committee. It is a very vital aspect in the entire controversy, which has been ignored by the respondent authorities. It is not the case that the petitioner has been allotted the land on concessional basis or in charity. The petitioner was in the process of obtaining necessary funds and after obtaining necessary approval from the concerned Panchayat, though it may not be required, has forwarded the Collector alongwith the representation, however, nothing was done on the representation and finally the impugned orders vesting the land into the State Government have been passed. "
4. With the above observations, while quashing the order dated 24.08.2011 passed by the Collector, the writ petition has been disposed of with the directions to the state authorities to examine the case of the petitioner as per the Government Resolution dated 06.06.2003. It was further directed that in case the petitioner is Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 21:34:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/601/2020 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025 undefined ready and willing to pay the penalty, as specified in the Government Resolution dated 06.06.2003 and if he pays the said penalty, necessary orders regularising the allotment as per the initial/original allotment order shall passed to regularise the breach of condition No.6.
5. We may record that the present appeal has been filed with the assertion that the panchnama showing that there was no construction over the land-in-question was drawn on 26.06.2010 by the Circle Officer, Mundra and thereafter on 05.07.2010 notice under Section 79A of the Land Revenue Code, 1879 calling upon the original petitioner for hearing alongwith the necessary documentary evidences supporting his case on 19.07.2010, was issued.
6. There is no dispute about the fact and it is stated in paragraph No. 2.3 of the memo of the appeal that the original petitioner appeared before the competent authority on 19.07.2010 and pleaded for extension with the contention that he was not in a position to raise the required constructions, but he would initiate the construction work at the earliest, as he had obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat. It is pertinent to note that the before the order of cancellation of allotment dated 24.08.2011 was passed by the Collector forfeiting the land-in-question, the petitioner had already completed the constructions and had also installed the machinery so as to carry out the industrial activities. This fact of the matter was brought before the Revisional Authority, which simply ignored the same while affirming the order passed by the Collector dated 24.08.2011.
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 21:34:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/601/2020 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025 undefined
7. Having noted the above facts and further that the learned single Judge has required the State authorities to pass an order of regularisation of the allotment, in case the petitioner agrees to pay penalty as per the Government Resolution dated 06.06.2003, which is required to be computed by the competent authority, we do not find it a fit case to interfere.
8. No infirmity could be found in the order passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal stands dismissed, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) C.M. JOSHI Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 21:34:56 IST 2025