Gujarat High Court
Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust vs State Of Gujarat on 19 March, 2021
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
C/SCA/12206/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12206 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
SABARMATI ASHRAM GAUSHALA TRUST
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR M PATEL(3841) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, AGP (1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 19/03/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave for learned
advocate Mr. Jigar Patel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Chintan Dave for the
respondent-State through video conference.
C/SCA/12206/2015 JUDGMENT
2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Dave
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.
Having regard to the controversy which is raised in this
petition in narrow compass with the consent of the learned
advocates of the respective parties, the same is taken up for
hearing.
3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of or
in the nature of Certorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction, quashing and setting aside order dated 20.05.2015
passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeal),
Gujarat State, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. 13 of
2010-Annexure A and be further pleased to allow the said
Revision Application of the petitioner in terms of prayers
made in paragraph No. 12 of the memo of Revision
Application No. 13 of 2010 by directing the respondents to
grant prayers made in an application dated 03.06.2008 made
by the petitioner trust to respondent No.3.
B. Pending admission, disposal and final hearing of the
above numbered special civil application, this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to restrain the respondents from taking
forcefully the possession of the land forming part of Revision
Application No. 13 of 2010, i.e. land bearing survey No. 1026,
admeasuring about 3 Acre 24 Gntha situated in Village: Bidaj
and Taluka: Mehemdabad;
C Ad interim relief in terms of aforesaid clause may kindly
be granted in the interest of justice;
D. Such other and further relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit to be granted in the interest of justice:"
C/SCA/12206/2015 JUDGMENT
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
4.1 On his return from South Africa, Mahatma Gandhiji's first
Ashram in India was established in the Kochrab area of
Ahmedabad on 25 May 1915. The Ashram was then shifted to
a piece of open land on the banks of the river Sabarmati to do
some experiments in farming, animal husbandry, cow breeding,
Khadi and related constructive activities. A Gaushala was set
up for milk supply for inmates of the Ashram.
After independence, six trusts were formed from the Gandhi
Ashram. Sabarmati Gaushala Trust (herein after to be referred
to as "the petitioner trust") was one among these Trusts which
was registered in 1952 as Public Charitable Trust under
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. In 1973, the Trustees handed
over the Trust to National Diary Development Board [for short
'NDDB'] for professional management. A Semen station was
established at Ahmedabad to produce liquid semen in the year
1974-75. This was shifted to Bidaj in Kheda district in 1976-77
and frozen semen production from different breeds of cattle
and buffaloes commenced. Since then the organization has
successfully engaged in production and supply of superior
quality frozen semen, frozen embryos, high pedigreed bull
calves and certified fodder seeds for the last for decades which
has benefited millions of farmers throughout country.
C/SCA/12206/2015 JUDGMENT
4.3 The Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and
Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India has
ranked petitioner trust's semen station first in India with 98.6%
marks for the year 2012-2013. The petitioner trust were ranked
first with secured 89.2% marks for the year 2005-06 and
consistently remains first since then.
4.4 NDDB is providing technical assistance to the petitioner
trust pursuant to the agreement executed by and between the
petitioner trust and NDDB. The petitioner trust is taking
technical assistance from NDDB in as much as NDDB is
known for its contribution to farming sector across the India.
5. It appears that thereafter after the expiry of the lease in the
year 1988, the NDDB applied for renewal of the lease which
was granted by the State Government vide order dated
06.06.1994 for another ten years w.e.f. 01.08.1988 at lease rent
of Rs. 112/- per year.
6. After the lease period expires in the year 1998, the Collector,
Kheda, extended the lease period for another ten years vide
order dated 15.01.2001. The NDDB thereafter made an
application on April 30, 2001 to transfer the lease in favour of
the petitioner trust on the ground that the land in question was
adjacent to the land owned by the petitioner-Trust which was
under institutional management of NDDB as per the
agreement. It was also submitted by NDDB that the leased
land should be in the name of the petitioner-Trust because the
C/SCA/12206/2015 JUDGMENT
petitioner-Trust was cultivating the land whereas the NDDB
was only temporarily managing the Trust affairs for specific
purpose for breeding milch animals with available trust
resources.
7. The respondent- Collector, Kheda by an order dated
04.06.2002 granted the application of the NDDB and
transferred the leasehold rights in favour of the petitioner-
Trust.
8. It appears that as the lease period was to over in the year 2008,
the petitioner-Trust made an application for extension of the
lease period in the year 2008. However, the Collector, Kheda-
respondent No.3, without issuance of any notice or giving any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed an order dated
02.08.2010 rejecting the application for renewal of the lease
preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the land in
question is not used by the petitioner- Trust for agriculture
purpose. The petitioner being aggrieved by such order
preferred revision application before the Secretary, Revenue
Department (Appeals) [For short 'SSRD']. The SSRD, by order
dated 21.05.2015, rejected revision application confirming the
order passed by the Collector on the ground that the land in
question is used as a pond and the same is not used by the
petitioner for agriculture purpose and therefore, Collector has
rightly declined to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner-
Trust.
C/SCA/12206/2015 JUDGMENT
9. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave assisted by
learned advocate Mr. Jigar Patel submitted that the impugned
order passed by the Collector dated 02.08.2010 is in flagrant
breach of the principle of natural justice as no notice was
issued by the Collector prior to passing the order. It was
submitted that the petitioner raised the issue of opportunity of
hearing before the SSRD in the written submissions filed on
23.12.2014. However, the SSRD, without considering the
same, rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner
on merits confirming the order passed by the Collector. It was
submitted that the Collector has not given any reason in the
order dated 02.08.2010 to reject the application of the
petitioner for renewal of the lease of the land in question. It
was therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are liable to
be quashed and set aside as the petitioner was not heard by the
Collector before passing the order.
10. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Dave submitted that there are concurrent findings
of fact recorded by the Collector as well as SSRD and the
petitioner has not controverted the fact that the land in
question is not used for the agriculture purpose. Learned AGP
Mr. Dave also relied upon the additional affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondent whereby the panchnama dated
08.09.2016 as well as the photographs of the land in question
C/SCA/12206/2015 JUDGMENT
are produced on record to show that there is a water body on
the land in question. It was therefore, submitted by learned
AGP Mr. Dave that no interference may be made in the
impugned orders as the same are passed on the basis of the
facts available on record.
11. In the rejoinder learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dave
submitted that the respondent cannot rely upon the panchnama
drawn subsequent to the date of passing of the order by the
Collector in the year 2010 or SSRD in the year 2015. It was
also submitted that at the time of drawing of panchana, the
petitioner was not put to the notice and it is the ex parte
panchnama which cannot be considered at this stage when the
impugned orders are passed prior to such panchnama. It was
reiterated by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dave that the fact
remains that no opportunity was given by the Collector before
passing the impugned order.
12. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and having gone through the materials on record it is
not in dispute that the land in question was given on lease
earlier to the NDDB since 1977-78 and subsequently,
transferred in the name of the petitioner in the year 2002 for
the lease period which was extended up to the year 2008. The
petitioner made an application for renewal of lease for further
period of 10 years as it was done earlier by the predecessor of
the petitioner i.e NDDB. However, respondent No.3-Collector,
C/SCA/12206/2015 JUDGMENT
Kheda, passed the impugned order without issuance of any
notice to the petitioner for giving an opportunity of hearing.
On perusal of the order dated 02.08.2010 passed by the
Collector rejecting the application of renewal preferred by the
petitioner it is without recording any fact of allotment of lease
to the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that the order dated
02.08.2010 passed by the Collector also does not refer to the
breach of any condition of order of the lease given to the
NDDB which was subsequently transferred to the petitioner.
In view of such order passed by the Collector, the same is not
tenable. It is also surprising that the SSRD has also confirmed
such order without considering the plea taken by the petitioner
that no opportunity of hearing was provided by the Collector
before passing the order dated 02.08.2010. In view of the
above undisputed fact, the petition deserves to be allowed only
on the ground of not giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner resulting into breach of principles of natural justice
without going into merits of the case.
13. Accordingly, petition succeeds. The impugned orders
dated 02.08.2010 passed by the Collector as well as the order
dated 21.05.2015 passed by the SSRD are hereby quashed and
set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Collector,
Kheda, to decide afresh de novo after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and to take a decision in accordance
with law to consider to renew the lease in favour of the
petitioner with regard to the land in question from 2008. Such
C/SCA/12206/2015 JUDGMENT
exercise shall be completed within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of this order. It is clarified that this
Court has not gone into the merits of the matter as the matter is
remanded only on the ground of breach of principle of natural
justice for not giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner by the Collector.
14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order
as to cost.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
JYOTI V. JANI
