GROMAX AGRI EQUIPMENT LTD. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the dispute in the present proceedings is pertaining to the land situated at Revenue Survey Nos. 498, 498 paiki, 499, 500/1, 500/2, 501 of Village Manjalpur and Survey No. 611 of Village Manjalpur (previously 221, 221/1, 221/2, 221/3 and 222 of Village Nagarwada), District: Vadodara. The said land is admeasuring 50 Acres 12 Gunthas. The petitioner-Company is the owner of the said land. Initially, there was a sanad of allotment in favour of one Pashabhai Patel and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter, the name of the Company was changed to Tractor and Bulldozer Pvt. Ltd., in the year 1959. Thereafter the name of the Company further undergone change to Hindustan Tractor Ltd., in the year 1962 and due to unavoidable circumstances, according to the petitioner, the land was handed over to Gujarat Agro in the year 1973 as per the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. Later on, in the year 1978, the Government of India by enacting an Act had named Hindustan Tractors Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1978 took over the management of the Company M/s. Hindustan Tractors Ltd. and after acquiring the Company from the Government of India, respondent no. 1 - State of Gujarat named it as Gujarat Tractor Corporation Limited. After part disinvestment by respondent no. 1 - State Government in the year 1999, it was renamed as Mahindra Gujarat Tractor Ltd. It is the case of the petitioner that to this partition of the land, the State Government had declared its intention to make a Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 31 in view of Sec. 41(1) of the Act and then series of steps have been taken in respect of which time and again, objections have been given and ultimately the matter came before this Court in which, according to the petitioner, an order was passed on 16/1/2019 observing that insofar as the challenge of the Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 31 is concerned, under the Scheme of Town Planning Act, the petitioner would be heard before sanctioning the Scheme. It was also observed that since the entire Draft Town Planning Scheme has not been sanctioned, the petitioner is yet to be heard and in view of this, the petition filed by the petitioner was premature.

(3.) The petition was taken up for hearing lastly on 5/10/2021 when learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jaiswal requested for some time to verify as to whether the Draft Town Planning Scheme has been submitted to the State Government and also to verify at what stage the same is lying whether it is finalized/approved or not. Time was granted and then the matter came up for consideration on 6/10/2021 and by that time, learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.S. Nanavati assisted by Mr. Mr. Kunal Nanavati and Mr. Nisarg Desai, learned advocates appearing for the petitioner has contended that yet there is no sanction given to Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 31 which has already been submitted to the State Government on 30/4/2019 and the status of the said scheme is as it is without any approval and as such has contended that at this stage even the State Government can considered objections/representations which have already been submitted and for which the petitioner is ready and willing to submit a further undertaking. For the purpose of this request, learned Senior Advocate Shri Nanavati has relied upon a decision dtd. 7/9/2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6752 of 2012 and has submitted that the observations which have been made are not so far changed nor are disturbed in the higher form and as such, in view of the observations which have been made, especially contained in para 19, the petition may be disposed of, as such, requested to dispose of the petition without expressing any opinion on merit with regard to any other issues involved in the petition and for that some time bound schedule be prescribed, for which, the petitioner has no reservation. No further submissions have been made.