SIEMENS LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, with following main prayers made in paragraph no.67(A) and (B) thereof as under:

(2.) As stated in the petition, as also in the impugned orders, the Collector, Vadodara made order dated 09.04.1975 for sale of the land admeasuring 15 acres (60,703 sq. mts.) from the land bearing survey no.589 situated at Sayajipura, Tal Dist:Vadodara to Miles India Project limited company on new and impartible tenure on different conditions for industrial purpose. It is the case of the petitioner that after the land was sold to the Miles India Limited, it was granted Non agriculture permission in 1975 and it got plan sanctioned and as per sanctioned plan, the construction was put up on the land, however, in 1976 since Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (the ULC Act) came into force, it applied for exemption under Section 20 of the ULC Act for the open land, and the process in connection with such application went on with the Industrial Commissioner and with the State Government and in the year 1986, the Industrial Commissioner granted exemption under Section 20 of the ULC Act only for 14,834 sq.mts of land. However, before that the Collector issued show cause notice dated 16.04.1984 to the Miles India Limited to show cause as to why the land should not be forfeited to Government for breach of condition nos.2 and 5. The Collector after hearing the Miles India Limited and considering its reply passed order dated 22.11.1985 forfeiting 11 acres of land (43,715 sq.mts) from 15 acres (60703 sq.mts) to vest with the State Government by recording finding that such 11 acres of land was not used for industrial purpose and was kept open. Being aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Commissioner in not granting exemption for entire land, Special Civil Application no.6058 of 1986 was filed before this Court and this Court vide its order dated 01.02.1986 remanded the matter to Industrial Commissioner for fresh decision, but before fresh decision could be taken, the ULC Act came to be repealed. However, as regards the order made by the Collector for forfeiting the land to State Government for breach of condition no.2 and 5, the petitioner filed Appeal before the Secretary, Revenue Department and the Secretary, after treating the Appeal as Revision Application remanded the matter to the Collector to inquire whether the construction put up was according to plan and to what extent the Company required the land and to take action for resumption of remaining land to the Government. Against such order of Secretary, Miles India Limited filed Special Civil Application no.4646 of 1986 before this Court which was initially disposed of with a liberty to revive the petition. It was thereafter revived and decided and disposed of by order dated 24.10.2005 whereby the remand order passed by the Secretary was upheld with some directions. It was thereafter, the Collector issued notice dated 08.09.2006 for fresh decision in the matter and by his order dated 25.03.2008, the Collector held that the Miles India Limited (which then changed its name to Buyers Diagnostic Limited) violated conditions no.2,8,12 and 13 of the grant and was liable to be proceeded under Section 79/A of the Land Revenue Code. Against such order of the Collector, the company named Siemens Medical Solution Diagnostic Limited filed Revision Application no.6 of 2008 before the Secretary, Revenue Department. Such Revision Application was heard and decided by the Joint Secretary, Revenue Department. The Joint Secretary rejected the Revision Application by order dated 20.04.2018. The petition is filed to challenge both the above orders.

(3.) Learned senior advocate Mr.Yatin Oza appearing with learned advocate Mr.M.N.Marfatia for the petitioner submitted that the land was sold to Miles India Limited by taking market value after examining the need for the land for industrial project. He submitted that after obtaining Non agriculture permission, the plan for construction was got sanctioned and the construction for initial stage of project was put up and it is nobody's case that the project was never launched. He submitted that it was because the proceedings under ULC Act were going on, the use of the entire land for industrial project was not possible till the ULC Act was repealed in 1999. He submitted that since the proceedings for breach of conditions of grant simultaneously went on and continued till 2018, it was impossible to expand the industrial project, and therefore it could not be said that the petitioner had deliberately not used the open land or had no intention to use open land for industrial purpose. He submitted that show cause notice was not specific and the impugned orders even traveled beyond the show cause notice. Mr.Oza submitted that the Collector and the Secretary committed serious error in considering the change in name of the original company as transfer to another Company to hold that the original Company committed breach of condition no.12 of the grant. Mr.Oza submitted that later on under the scheme of amalgamation approved by Bombay High Court, the original company came to be merged and amalgamated with Siemens Limited but its identity is not lost and it could not be said that the land granted to the original Company was transferred to any other company or a foreign company. Mr.Oza submitted that for expansion of industrial project, the petitioner requires entire land which was granted in the year 1975, as under the prevalent rules for making construction for industrial project, 50% of the land is required to be kept open. Mr.Oza submitted that the expansion of industrial project of the petitioner has been planed since long but it could not be implemented on account of the proceedings continued till the impugned orders were made. He submitted that it is not correct to say that the petitioner has used the open land only for growing grass and to deal in business of grass. Mr.Oza submitted that since development on land for expansion of industrial project could not take place, the land remained open and grass used to grow naturally and for such natural growing of the grass on the open land could not be considered as use of the land for the purpose other than the industrial purpose. Mr.Oza submitted that since the petitioner has not committed breach of any of the conditions of the grant of the land and since the petitioner intents to expand its industrial project without any delay and within shortest possible time limit and for such expansion of industrial project, there is a need for the entire land to comply with the prevalent rules for making construction for industrial project, the impugned orders be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers under Art.226 of the Constitution.