SWASTIK KHANDSARI UDYOG Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the order dated 2.7.1999 passed by the District Collector and its confirmation thereof by the State Government as per the order dated 2.7.2004, whereby the land allotted to the original grantee is ordered to be forfeited.

(2.) Heard Mr.Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Desai firstly raised the contention that there is no material produced on record to show that it is a new tenure land and he further submitted that if there is no material produced to show that the land allotted was a new tenure land, the Authority could not have proceeded on the basis that it is a new tenure land. In support he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of "Kalumiya Dalumiya vs. State of Gujarat", reported in 2001(1) GLH (U.J.), 5. In my view, the said contention is ill-founded in as much as in the order dated 2.7.1996, whereby land was allotted to the original grantee, it has been expressly stated that the land has been allotted as new and undivided tenure (restricted tenure) and, therefore, the same itself is sufficient material to show that the land allotted was as a new tenure land. It is also pertinent to note that originally the land in question was goucher land and it had vested to the Gram Panchayat. The same has been resumed back by the State Government and has been allotted to the grantee as new tenure land and, therefore, the decision in case of "Kalumiya Dalumiya" (supra), in my view, cannot be made applicable to the present case and more particularly, when there was material to show that the land was allotted as new tenure land. Mr.Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to submit that the interpretation of the conditions go to show that it is a new tenure land. The same also cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the various conditions mentioned therein authorise the Government to forfeit the land in case of breach of any of the conditions and, therefore, when the allotment itself is of a new tenure land and of restricted tenure land and the conditions authorise the Government to resume back the land and to forfeit the land, it cannot be accepted that the land was old tenure land.

(3.) Mr.Desai also raised the contention that as per Conditions No.4 and 5, it cannot be said that in a matter of transfer of the land or factory, the permission was required to be obtained. He also submitted that the interpretation of Condition No.8 made by the Authority is not correct and the same does not require obtaining of the permission from the Government. He submitted that the petitioner had shown willingness to pay the unearned profit of 50% but as initially the direction was to recover 75% of the unearned profit and 40 times penalty of revenue assessment, the payment is not made. He submitted that as such as the order was passed by the District Collector to deposit 75% unearned profit and penalty of 40 times revenue assessment, the State Government had remanded the matter. He submitted that after the remand the Collector has misinterpreted the conditions and has passed the impugned order. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in case of "Rajkot District Co-operative Purchase & Sales Union Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.", reported in 1999(2) GLR, 1717 to contend that the decision of the Collector to direct for deposit of 150% unearned profit cannot be sustained on the face of the condition and he also submitted that even if this Court finds that the petitioner was required to deposit 100% unearned profit, this Court may interfere and may put the petitioner to such terms and conditions and, therefore, he submitted that the order passed by the Collector as well as by the State Government deserve interference.