State Of Raj vs Kamla Bai And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 4369 Raj

[2023/RJJD/013358]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9396/2016

State Of Rajasthan Through The Tehsildar, Tehsil Vallabh Nagar, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Kamla Bai W/o Sh. Chhogalal, By Caste Mahajan Nagda, R/o Bhinder, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur Substituted In Place Of M/s Kalika Idustries, Prop. Shri Babulal Nagouri.

2. The Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan At Ajmer.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Harshit Bhurani
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Navneet Poonia



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                   Judgment

Reserved on 03/05/2023
Pronounced on 10/05/2023

1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution

of India has been preferred by the petitioner for the following

reliefs :-

(1) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dt.08.10.2015 (Annex.9) passed by the learned Board of Revenue in Appeal/LR/7276/2010 may kindly be quashed and set aside; (2) The judgments dt.30.10.2010 (Annex.7) and 29.11.2010 (Annex.8) passed by the District Collector (Ind.) and RAA, Udaipur may very kindly be upheld and maintained.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that a land comprised in Araji

No.48 measuring 1.00 bigha, village Faujbadli, district Udaipur

was allotted to Shri Babulal for establishing industry by the District

[2023/RJJD/013358] (2 of 8) [CW-9396/2016]

Collector (Industries), Udaipur on 13.2.1987 on 99 year lease-

basis. On 19.2.1987, possession of the land was handed-over to

allottee and lease-deed was executed on 31.3.1987.

3. That the officials of Industries Department conducted

inspection of site 28.6.2006 and submitted its report, according to

which, no industrial activity was being carried out on the land

in-question since last 10-12 years. The report dated 28.6.2006

was submitted before the District Collector (Industries), Udaipur.

The District Collector (Industries), Udaipur issued show-cause

notice to M/s. Kalika Industries, to which, no reply was filed.

4. That by an order dated 15.1.2007 (Annex.3), District

Collector (Industries), Udaipur cancelled allotment of land in

favour of respondent-firm on account of violation of terms and

conditions of lease-deed and provisions of Rajasthan Land

Revenue (Allotment of land for industrial purposes) Rules, 1959

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1959').

5. That being aggrieved against the order dated 15.1.2077, the

allottee- Shri Babulal Nagouri filed an appeal before the Revenue

Appellate Authority, being Appeal No.18/2007, which was decided

vide order dated 24.4.2008 wherein the order dated 15.1.2007

was set aside and the District Collector (Ind), Udaipur was

directed to decide the matter afresh after providing an opportunity

of hearing to the allottee.

6. That after the matter was remanded the allottee was

provided opportunity of being heard and produce the evidence.

After hearing arguments of the parties, District Collector, Udaipur

passed an order dated 22.12.2008 whereby allotment of land in

[2023/RJJD/013358] (3 of 8) [CW-9396/2016]

question in favour of Shri Babulal Nagouri was cancelled and the

Tehsildar, Vallabhnagar was directed to take possession of the

land.

7. That being aggrieved against the order dated 22.12.2008,

respondent-Kamla Bai preferred an appeal before the learned

Revenue Appellate Authority stating that the land in-question has

been purchased by her in the year 1996 and she was not provided

an opportunity of being heard. The said appeal was allowed by the

RAA, Udaipur vide order dated 12.4.2010 and matter was again

remanded to the District Collector (Ind), Udaipur for deciding the

same afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to

respondent-Smt. Kamla Bai.

8. That after the matter was remanded, the respondent no.1

was provided an opportunity of hearing by the District Collector

(Ind.), Udaipur and vide an order dated 30.10.2010, the allotment

of land in question was set aside for violation of Rule-7 of the

Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Industrial

Purposes) Rules, 1959 and Tehsildar, Vallabhnagar was directed

to take possession of the land in-question. It was also directed

that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the Sub-

Registrar/Tehsildar who registered the sale-deed dated 8.11.1996

without prior approval of the competent authority for transfer of

land.

9. That being aggrieved against the order dated 30.10.2010,

respondent no.1 preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue

Appellate Authority, Udaipur being Appeal No.114/2010. The

[2023/RJJD/013358] (4 of 8) [CW-9396/2016]

appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 was rejected by the RAA,

Udaipur vide order dated 29.11.2010 (Annex.8).

10. That being aggrieved against the order dated 29.11.2010,

the respondent no.1 preferred an appeal before the learned Board

of Revenue, Ajmer.

11. That appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 came-up

before the learned Board of Revenue on 8.10.2015 and the

learned Board of Revenue accepted the same.

12. That in the aforesaid circumstance, being aggrieved against

the decision dated 08.10.2015 (Annex.9) passed by the learned

Board of Revenue, Ajmer, the petitioner prefers the present writ

petition.

13. Counsel for the petitioner-State submitted that the decision

dated 08.10.2015 (Annex.9) passed by learned Board of Revenue,

Ajmer is erroneous and is liable to be quashed and set aside for

the reason that the Board of Revenue has failed to appreciate the

Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for

industrial purposes) Rules, 1959. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1959

reads as follows :-

Rule 7. Setting up of Industries - Industries shall be set up within a period of two years on the land allotted for the purpose, failing which the land shall revert to the Government, unless the period of two years is extended by the allotting authorities vor valid reasons. Provided that if such land could not be used for Industrial purposes within the period as prescribed above, the State Government may extend the period further as deemed proper. In such cases, the application shall move application through the Divisional Commissioner who after examination of the case, forward the same to the State Government with his comments."

[2023/RJJD/013358] (5 of 8) [CW-9396/2016]

14. Counsel for the petitioner-State submitted that according to

Rule 7 of the Rules of 1959, the allottee was required to set up

industrial unit within two years on the land allotted for the

purpose, failing which, the land shall revert to the Government.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

respondent had not utilized the land in-question for industry,

which is evident from the inspection report, which stated that from

last 10 to 12 year's from the date of inspection by the officials of

Industries Department the respondent has not utilized the land for

industrial purpose.

16. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the

terms and conditions of the lease-deed and allotment letter, the

original allottee i.e. Shri Babulal Nagori could not have transferred

the land in-question to present respondent no.1 without prior

approval of the State Government. He also submitted that when

the respondent no.1 purchased the land in-question, the same

was not being used for industrial purpose by its original allottee

and even thereafter did not use it for industrial purpose.

Therefore, the respondent no.1 is not entitled to get any relief

from the court.

17. Per contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that after

the land was allotted to the original allottee on 13.2.1987 on a

lease of 99 years, an industry was established, boundary wall and

shed were constructed. Furthermore, the Certificate of AVVNL

No.1133 dated 03.11.2008 issued in favour of subsequent

purchaser certifies that the unit has been given electricity

connection of 15 HP in the category of "Small-Scale Industry."

[2023/RJJD/013358] (6 of 8) [CW-9396/2016]

Thus, the original allottee had complied with Rule 7 of the Rules of

1959.

18. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that

the transfer of land to the subsequent purchaser has been

accepted by the Tehsildar concerned, which also stands proved as

the Revenue Appellate Authority in its decision dated 12.4.2010

has recorded the name of respondent-Smt. Kamla Bai in place of

the original allottee Shri Babulal Nagori. Therefore, the petitioner-

State cannot take the plea that the sale was executed without

prior permission of State Government.

19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

20. The allotment order dated 13.2.1987 and lease-deed dated

31.3.87 had been executed in favour of Kalika Industries through

Proprietor Babulal Nagori. It is apparent that the respondent

could not set up an industry within a period of two years on the

said land. The respondent was under an obligation to establish

that he had set up an industry on the said land within a period of

two years but nothing concrete was placed by the respondent

no.1, rather a copy of Registry was placed on record showing that

the allotted land in-dispute was transferred in favour of the

respondent no.1 on 15.03.1997 and the name of Smt. Kamla Bai

is entered instead of Kalika Industries. The learned Revenue

Appellate Authority in its order dated 8.10.2015 has given a

finding that the respondent sought some time before it to start a

new industry on account of closure of the earlier one and based on

this statement, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority remanded

[2023/RJJD/013358] (7 of 8) [CW-9396/2016]

the matter back to the District Collector for passing order afresh.

However, the respondent during the arguments before the District

Collector instead of seeking time to establish a new industry

prayed that the nature of land in-dispute be changed from

commercial use to residential use and the District Collector,

therefore, upheld the order of cancellation of allotment of land in-

dispute. The act of the respondent shows the intention of the

respondent and the purpose for which he wanted to utilize the

land in-dispute. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority held that

on the one hand the respondent sought time before the Revenue

Appellate Authority to establish a new industry and on the other

hand an application was moved before the District Collector for

changing the use of land from commercial to residential.

21. This Court finds that the learned Board of Revenue has

failed to appreciate the aforementioned aspects of the case. The

learned Board of Revenue without appreciating the facts and

record of the case has held that once industry was established and

the industry was running for two years, then as per Rule 7 of the

Rules of 1959, the whole of such an industrial unit can be sold and

in this case also the entire land was sold. The learned Board of

Revenue also gave a finding that similarly it has been mentioned

in Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 1959 that once the land has been used

for the purpose for which it was allotted within the period

prescribed in Rule 7, the lessee shall have his right of interest in

the whole of the land so allotted.

22. This Court finds that the basic requirement of fulfilling the

condition of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1959 has not been made by the

[2023/RJJD/013358] (8 of 8) [CW-9396/2016]

respondent as an industry had not been established within a

period of two years and nothing substantial was placed on record

by the respondent to demonstrate the same, therefore, the writ

petition is allowed and the decision dated 08.10.2015 (Annex.9)

passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Appeal No.

Appeal/LR/7276/2010 is reversed and the decision dated

29.11.2010 (Annex.8) passed by the learned Revenue Appellate

Authority dated 29.11.2010 (Annex.8) is upheld. No order as to

costs.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 70-Sanjay/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)