Gujarat High Court
Izz Infra Llp vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9841 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI Sd/-
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
======================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
======================================
IZZ INFRA LLP & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1, 3
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date : 24/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI) Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Manish J. Patel, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for and on Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined behalf of respondent No. 2. Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned AGP, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BSNL', for short) to execute the registered sale deed in favor of present petitioner No. 1, being the successful bidder, in respect of vacant land bearing Plot No. 5D, CS No. 146 & 353, Opp. Panjarapole, Ghod-Dod Road, Karimabad, Surat, Gujarat- 395001, having Site Area - 5359 Sqm., Built-up area-Nil, having Geographical Coordinates: Latitude-21.174629, Longitude-72.814618 (hereinafter referred to as "land/property in question") and having property surroundings, as mentioned in the Request for Proposal (hereinafter referred to as "RFP") document, by obtaining No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as "NOC") from District Collector, Surat, forthwith. 1.1 Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners in petitioner No.1 - Limited Liability Partnership (hereinafter referred to as "LLP"), as claimed in the petition.
Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined
2. There are further reliefs also claimed in the petition, which are as under:-
"9. (B) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to issue NOC in favour of BSNL forthwith as to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioners - successful bidder in respect of land bearing Plot No.5D, Opp. Panjrapole, Ghod-Dod Road, Surat;
(C) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, holding that the term "Company" mentioned in Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, would not include the company of Central Government i.e. BSNL and thereby be further pleased to direct the District Collector to issue NOC forthwith so as to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners;
(D) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to issue NOC in favour of BSNL forthwith irrespective of the inter-se dispute between the respondents regarding the applicability of Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, subject to the final outcome of the present petition; "
3. Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that vide Office Memorandum dated Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined 29.10.2019 by the Department of Telecommunications (hereinafter referred to as "DoT"), PSU-I Division, the Union Cabinet, in its meeting held on 23.10.2019, considered and approved the proposals of "DoT" for "Revival of BSNL and MTNL" vide its Cabinet Note dated 22.10.2019. 3.1 By the said Office Memorandum, decision of Union Cabinet is issued, which contains approval of Cabinet vide para 2(vii), which reads as under:-
"Monetisation of land/building assets following DIPAM guidelines for asset monetisation. The proceeds of asset monetisation will be credited to BSNL/MTNL to service the debt, CAPEX and other requirements. The progress of asset monetisation will be reviewed by a committee formed under the chairmanship of Pr. Advisor to Hon'ble Prime Minister with Cabinet Secretary, Secretary (DEA), Secretary (T), Secretary (DIPAM) and Secretary (MoHUA) as members."
3.2 Pursuant thereto, with the approval of Honourable Minister of Communications, the Director (Asset Management) addressed a letter to CMD, BSNL, H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath New Delhi, intimating that BSNL will follow the policy for monetizing its land and building assets through outright sale through transfer.
Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined 3.3 Pursuant thereto, respondent - BSNL issued "RFP" document for the sale of "land/property in question" by e-tender dated 28.10.2022.
3.4 There appears no dispute that the petitioner No. 1 -
"LLP" is the highest bidder and its bid was accepted for the "land/property in question" by the respondent - BSNL.
3.5 Pursuant thereto, petitioner No. 1 is issued Acceptance Letter vide communication dated 14.07.2023.
3.6 Pursuant thereto, as per the claim of the petitioners, which is not even disputed by either side, that the amount mentioned in the Acceptance Letter is deposited with BSNL within the time prescribed. The said Acceptance Letter came to be issued pursuant to Office Memorandum dated 13.07.2023 made by Deputy Director General (Asset Management) granting approval-cum-acceptance of highest bid by the Group of Ministers (hereinafter referred to as "GoM"), which was convened for monetization of 03 properties of BSNL, as proposed by BSNL vide their letter dated 12(11)/2/2022, which includes the present property at Serial No. 2 mentioned therein. The minimum Reserve price was Rs.38,89,00,000/-, whereas highest/eligible bid valuation Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined recommended by BSNL and offered by the petitioners was Rs.41,49,00,000/-.
3.7 Vide communication dated 14.11.2023, Deputy Manager (LM) of BSNL addressed to Chief General Manager, BSNL (Gujarat Circle), Ahmedabad, conveyed the approval of competent authority for transfer of "land/property in question"
in favor of successful bidder (purchaser) through execution of sale deed, by the Gujarat Circle/Surat BA, as successful bidder has completed the payment of full sale consideration. 3.8 The Chief General Manager of Gujarat Circle was directed to take necessary action as per the terms and conditions of the "RFP" for transfer of "land/property in question" to the successful bidder. A sample sale deed was also prepared and approved by Department of Investment and Public Asset Management (DIPAM) to BSNL in connection with the sale of the "land/property in question" in December, 2021. Copy of which was sent to the Chief General Manager, Gujarat Circle.
It was also directed that the sale deed for transfer of subject land may be made on similar lines after making modifications, if required, as per norms of revenue/registration Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined authorities and in consultation with the Transaction Advisor M/s. Delhi Integrated Multi-Model Transit System Limited (DIMTS). It was also cautioned that the contents of final sale deed should not be in conflict with any of the "RFP" conditions. 3.9 Vide communication dated 28.09.2022 of Assistant General Manager (L & B) BSNL, Office of GMTD, Surat, addressed to the Collector, Surat (Acquisition Branch) seeking permission to sell "land/property in question", requesting to inform if any amount is to be deposited for the purpose of the same. In the said communication, it is already made clear that the "land/property in question" was acquired by the Central Government for the purpose of constructing block/staff quarters of administrative office of the respondent authority and allotted to BSNL by it. As per the said acquisition order, amount of compensation was also paid and thereafter, said property came to be allotted by the Central Government to BSNL and possession was also handed over. As it was a part of Central Government, land was allotted in the name of "DoT", Government of India but subsequently, it came to be changed to 'Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited' in the City Survey Record, and name of respondent authority - BSNL came to be inserted. Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined 3.10 It was communicated to the Collector, Surat, by the Assistant General Manager (L & B), BSNL, vide communications dated 18.07.2019 and 21.01.2021 that as per Resolution of the Union of India, permitted outright sale of the "land/property in question". It was also requested that even for the sale of the "land/property in question", if no permission is required then to issue "NOC" in that respect. As such, there is no dispute that the "land/property in question" was acquired for the purpose of the "DoT" (Central Government) on payment of compensation and since then, it was allotted to the respondent - BSNL through the "DoT". It is also further not in dispute that for augmenting financial support to the BSNL as also MTNL, Union Cabinet has issued the Office Memorandum, as aforesaid. 3.11 Petitioner No. 1, therefore, addressed an e-mail communication dated 01.11.2023 to the Land Management Unit, BSNL requesting to execute the sale deed, as full payment pursuant to the auction sale is already made. The respondent - BSNL communicated to the petitioner that, since the "land/property in question" is an acquired one, Office of the Collector informed that they need to take prior permission from the State Government, for which it was asked to make an application with the Acquisition Branch. Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined 3.12 Secretary, Ministry of Communications, "DoT", vide its communication dated 23.01.2024 addressed to Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat, informed that the "land/property in question" was acquired for Telecom Department (Surat Telephones) in 1986 on payment of market rates and stands mutated in the name of BSNL. 3.12.1 He has also informed the Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat that, Union Cabinet has approved the revival plan of BSNL, which includes asset monetization. It also refers about the Report of the Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat to BSNL that they proposed/inserted condition for payment of 50% of the current market value in the transaction for granting "NOC", quoting reference of Section 44A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1894").
3.12.2 The communication further refers that demand raised by Revenue Department was referred to Department of Legal Affairs (hereinafter referred to as "DoLA"), Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, which has examined the case in detail and conclusive observation of "DoLA" are quoted in the said communication, which reads as under:- Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined "5. (i) the terms Company as referred under Section 44A means a company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, other than a Government company referred to in clause (cc) of Section 3:
(ii) When the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances;
(iii) In view of the position at (i) and (ii) above as in the case in hand admittedly BSNL is a Government Company falling under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 it may not be legally correct to say that the it can be covered under Section 44A of the Act;
(iv) In view of the above and admittedly possession of the land has been taken by paying the full consideration by the Government of India, it becomes absolute owner of the said land and is the appropriate Government."
Therefore, the Secretary, Ministry of
Communications, "DoT" informed the Chief Secretary,
Government of Gujarat that the view of Revenue Department seeking proposed 50% of the amount of sale price under Section 44A of "the Act, 1894" is legally not tenable.
Therefore, a request was made to issue necessary permission Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined to all concerned for issue of "NOC" for completion of the transaction without insisting for sharing of sale proceeds. 3.13 Vide communication dated 31.01.2024, Section Officer, Revenue Department was informed by the Collector, Surat, in answer to the queries raised, more particularly Issue No. 6 that, the "land/property in question" came to be acquired by "DoT", Government of India and it was acquired for the purpose of Central Government on constitution of BSNL. Said "land/property in question" came to be transferred by the Central Government to BSNL under a Gazetted Notification dated 17.3.2001.
3.13.1 He has also referred Section 44A of "the Act, 1894"
that for transfer of acquired land, prior permission of the 'appropriate Government' is required. Referring to Section 3(ee) of "the Act, 1894", he informed that, 'appropriate Government' means, in relation to acquisition of land for the purposes of the Union, the Central Government, and therefore, Central Government, while exercising the powers of "GoM", obtained permission for sale thereof, and therefore, respondent - BSNL is having permission for sale thereof of the appropriate Government.Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined 3.13.2 He has also opined that "land/property in question"
came to be acquired by the Central Government on payment of compensation for purposes of Union, Section 44A of "the Act, 1894" requires previous sanction of appropriate Government, which is Central Government in this case, and BSNL has that sanction. It nowhere provides for sharing of consideration on transfer of land with the State Government. He has also further opined that even the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 also does not provide for sharing of revenue pursuant to sale consideration received by BSNL.
3.14 Vide affidavit affirmed on 20.11.2024, Assistant General Manager (L & B), Office of CGMT, Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad stated that Secretary, GIT, Ministry of Communications, sent letter to Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat, to look into the matter and appropriate direction be issued to Collector, Surat, for granting "NOC". Despite repeated correspondence with the Collector, Surat, till date, no "NOC" has been given by him or even by the State of Gujarat and therefore, respondent - BSNL is unable to execute the sale deed in favour of petitioner No.1.
Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined It is further asserted in the affidavit that respondent
- BSNL is trying to resolve the issue with the help of State Government and in that regard, communication is also addressed to the Chief Minister, Gujarat, vide letter dated 30.09.2024 and after getting "NOC", the respondent will execute the sale deed.
3.15 Surprisingly, Collector, Surat, who answered queries of the Revenue Department and opined that under Section 44A of "the Act, 1894", respondent - BSNL is having the permission of appropriate Government for the purpose of sale and there is no provision under "the Act, 1894" for sharing of revenue realized from sale of the asset of respondent - BSNL, has in an affidavit affirmed on 26.11.2024, attempted to assert, in the name of Revenue Department that, as per Section 17A of "the Act, 1894" [inserted vide The Land Acquisition (Gujarat Unification and Amendment), Act, 1963] that, land can be utilized only for any other public purpose after previous sanction of the State Government other than the purpose for what it was acquired. Section 17A, inserted by the State Amendment, is also quoted in extenso in the affidavit, which reads as under:-
Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined "17A. When any land vests in the State Government or in a corporation owned or controlled by the State Government under the provisions of this Act, it shall be lawful, with the previous sanction of the State Government, to use such land also for any public purpose other than that for which its possession was taken."
4. In this background, let us examine the submissions made on behalf of the parties for the decision of this case.
5. Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that the "land/property in question" in dispute came to be acquired by the Central Government for its "DoT" on payment of compensation under "the Act, 1894" and thereafter, handed over to the respondent - BSNL, State has nothing to do with the same. At the same time, it being property of the Central Government, when it is being sold with the previous permission of the Central Government itself, the State, either through the Collector or the Revenue Department, has no role to play in it, as in that case it is an appropriate Government whose previous sanction is already there. 5.1 He has further submitted that title and ownership is an absolute of the respondent - Department, as stated in the Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined "RFP" document itself. Referring to the legal opinion of the Legal Department of Union of India, it is submitted that the Revenue Department as also the Office of the Collector, by quoting irrelevant provisions of law under "the Act, 1894", tried to create hurdles in the execution of a sale deed for a "land/property in question", which was purchased in an open auction and despite the entire consideration of the sale transaction being paid long back by the petitioner No. 1. 5.2 Referring to the reply submitted by the Collector, Surat, and a query raised by the Revenue Department in respect of whether permission is to be granted for the sale of "land/property in question" or not, it took a somersault, may be on advice of the Revenue Department, and attempted to raise altogether a different and irrelevant provision again by way of Section 17A of "the Act, 1894". According to his submission, neither Section 44A nor Section 17A of "the Act, 1894" is applicable to the "land/property in question". 5.3 He has further submitted that respondent - BSNL has unnecessarily sought for permission from the Collector, which was never required at all for the sale of "land/property in question".
Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined 5.4 He has further submitted that this petition be admitted and allowed, directing respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein to grant "NOC" to BSNL forthwith to execute sale deed in favor of the petitioner No. 1 - successful bidder in respect of the "land/property in question".
6. As against that, Mr. Manish J. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 - BSNL, submitted that respondent No. 2 is ready to execute the sale deed, provided "NOC" is granted by the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to them. 6.1 He has further submitted that, there is no dispute that the "land/property in question" was sold in an open auction and the petitioner No. 1 was the successful bidder and he has deposited the entire sale consideration long back. In absence of immediate execution of the sale deed, they are ready to return back the amount, as stated in the affidavit-in- reply. Therefore, he has submitted that they are open to the execution of a sale deed, provided respondent Nos. 1 and 3 grant either permission or "NOC" for the purpose of execution of sale deed pursuant to an auction conducted.
7. As against that, Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned AGP, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3, submitted that when land is acquired for a company, there is restriction on transfer Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined of the same. Therefore, according to the submission of learned AGP, permission from the State Government and previous sanction of the appropriate Government i.e. Government of Gujarat, is required.
7.1 In the next breadth, by way of the affidavit of the Collector, who opined that, appropriate Government would be the Central Government in the present case, has come out with an affidavit-in-reply, now again invoking Section 17A of "the Act, 1894", which has been inserted by way of State Amendment, which reads and is referred to hereinabove. Therefore, in the opinion of the learned AGP, the stand taken by the State Government that 50% of the sale consideration, as a part of grant of either previous sanction/"NOC", is to be levied from the respondent No. 2 herein. Therefore, it is submitted that the petition be rejected.
8. Having heard the learned advocates for the appearing parties as also the learned AGP, let us examine whether any permission, as prayed for by the respondent No. 2 herein, before transferring the land in favor of the auction purchaser, which is permitted to be sold by the Union Cabinet on advice of Group of Ministers for revival of BSNL which is property of the Central Government itself, is required or not. Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined 8.1 As coming out from the record, "land/property in question" was acquired by the Central Government for its Telecom Department (Surat Telephones) in 1986 on payment of the market rates and it stood mutated in the name of BSNL. Therefore, it is very clear that land was acquired by the Central Government on payment of compensation, and therefore, it was never acquired by or for any company. The misconception in the mind of the State of Gujarat as also the Collector, Surat objecting to the same on condition of payment of 50% of the sale consideration based on the restriction on transfer, as claimed in Section 44A of "the Act, 1894", is worth noting. As mentioned in Section 44A of "the Act, 1894", it falls within Part-VII titled as 'Acquisition of Land for Companies'. Both the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 misconstrued that the "land/property in question" was ever acquired for any company. As communicated by the Secretary, Ministry of Communications, "DoT" to the Chief Secretary, State of Gujarat that it was acquired by the Central Government for its "DoT" and not by any 'company', as defined in Section 3(e) of "the Act, 1894", which entitles State to grant previous sanction as an appropriate Government.
Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined 8.2 As referred to hereinabove, in all the communications and even in the opinion expressed by the Legal Department of Union of India, as also in response to queries raised by the Revenue Department, answer of the Collector, Surat, for the present "land/property in question", if at all, it is acquired for any company, the appropriate Government would be the Central Government and not the State Government. Not only that, it is opined even by the Collector, Surat to the queries raised by the Revenue Department that previous sanction for sale of the said property is also granted by the Union of India. Thus, in no case, State Government can be said to be an appropriate Government under Section 44A of "the Act, 1894". It is a misconstrued idea either of the Revenue Department or of the Collector, Surat to have a share in the sale consideration for the purpose of granting any previous sanction for the same. 8.3 Realizing explanation offered by the Collector, Surat to the Revenue Department on queries raised that, they have no legs to stand, as coming out from the affidavit of the Collector, Surat, Revenue Department had sought to open a wicket gate in the form of Section 17A of "the Act, 1894". As quoted hereinabove. Even invoking provisions of Section 17A, Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined inserted by way of State Amendment, is also misconceived and done with some ulterior motive. It provides that, when any land vests with the State Government acquired for any purpose, can be utilized for any other public purpose. State Government had never acquired that "land/property in question", and State Government is also not the owner of that "land/property in question", therefore, there is no question of utilizing it for a different purpose than the purpose for which it was acquired.
8.4 Quoting Section 17A of "the Act, 1894", that too, by way of affidavit of the Collector, Surat, is again an attempt to create hurdles in the execution of a sale deed on payment of auction price long back by the auction purchaser. 8.5 As such, respondent - BSNL was not required to seek any permission, at least for the purpose of sale of the property, when appropriate Government being the Central Government and particularly, when the "GoM" permitted, which is previous sanction for sale of that asset, for monetization for the revival of BSNL. Be that as it may, asking the permission under misconception of law or facts will not entitle either the State Government or the Collector to create Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined hurdles in the execution of a sale deed under the guise of either previous sanction or "NOC" for the purpose of sale. 8.6 However, even if there requires sharing of sale proceeds, as claimed by the State Government, it would be a dispute between the State Government and the Central Government, but for that, purchaser of property in an open auction, who deposited Rs.41,49,00,000/- being the entire sale price, cannot be deprived of the "land/property in question" by prolonging execution of sale deed under the guise of that dispute, by the BSNL.
8.7 Therefore, at once, BSNL is hereby directed to execute a sale deed of the "land/property in question" in favor of the petitioner No. 1, without waiting for anything further, within a period of 04 weeks from today, i.e. 24.02.2025. 8.8 If at all, State Government or the Collector, Surat, have any legally tenable claim in the property, it may be resolved with Central Government through BSNL by appropriate mode, but that will not entitle them to sit over the issue under the guise of "NOC" for the purpose of executing sale deed wrongly asked by BSNL, which was not required at all.
Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined
9. Considering the overall circumstances and the provisions of law as also the papers on record, it is clear that the objection raised on behalf of the State Government as also the Collector, Surat, is not tenable at all. Therefore, we are left with no option but to direct the respondent herein, more particularly respondent No. 2, to execute the sale deed in favor of the petitioner No. 1 - successful bidder. 9.1 As held hereinabove, no previous sanction or "NOC" is required for the purpose of execution of sale deed by the State Government or Collector but with a view to see that the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 hereinafter may not create any hurdles in the execution of the sale deed of the "land/property in question", they are hereby directed to issue "NOC" in favor of the petitioners within a period of 04 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
In view thereof, this petition stands allowed. Rule made absolute.
Sd/-
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.) Sd/-
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.) Raj Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025