SHIR VENU CEMENT PIPE INDUSTRIES Vs. THE COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and validity of the Order passed by the respondent no. 2 herein, rejecting two Revision Applications No. 3 of 2013 and 21 of 2013 preferred by the petitioner herein challenging the Order dated 16th October 2002 passed by the District Collector, refusing change of user of the lands and the order of the said authority, directing to confiscate the lands. A short question which needs to be addressed in the present writ petition is whether a piece of land, which was allotted to a partnership firm can be treated as a transfer and subjected to confiscation merely because some of the partners no more continue and few others, as per Government record, are continued even as on today. Before delving into merits of the matter, a succinct reference of the facts; as averred in the memo of petition, narrates thus :

(2.) Petitioner - a partnership firm was granted a piece of land admeasuring 5000 sq. yards out of Survey No. 129 of village Nagvadar of Upleta Taluka for the purpose of erecting houses for Industrial purposes on 14th November 1963. On representation, mistaken unauthorized user of 7553 sq yards of land of the said survey number came to be regularized on 28th December 1967 and on 3rd April 1973, a further piece of land admeasuring 368.3 sq yards from the same survey came to be granted to the petitioner-firm. Thus, by an Order dated 3rd April 1973, for the said three different parcels of land of Survey No. 129 of Village Nagvadar of Upleta Taluka, the petitioner-firm was granted Sanad in Form No. HH for construction of buildings of its industrial use, thereby regularizing encroachment of land. However, on 1st December 1997, Dy.Collector, Gondal issued a show cause notice upon the petitioner to show cause as to why lands granted to the petitioner by three orders; referred to hereinabove, should not be forfeited for the reason that since 10 years, they had not put in use the land granted to it and thereby committed breach of condition of orders for grant of the land. The petitioner-firm tendered its reply on 29th May 1998 pointing out that the lands granted to it were granted as the owner by recovering the market price for them and the petitioner is using the same for manufacturing cement pipes; since it is in the business of manufacturing and selling the cement pipes, and there is no breach of condition in any way. It was also pointed out to the authorities that there being slackness in the market, and therefore, there is great reduction in the business and the stock of cement pipes has piled up, and during interregnum due to demise of some partners, their heirs have been joined as partners in the firm, and hence, a request was made to the authorities not to confiscate the lands of the petitioner. The said request came to be acceded by the Deputy Collector, Gondal vide Order dated 30th November 1998 withdrawing show cause notice dated 1st December 1997 and thereby permitting the petitioner-firm to put these lands for any other use than its user for cement pipe business; subject to prior permission of the Collector. Nevertheless, after lapse of three years, the said order came into suo motu revision by the Collector under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, which came to be replied by the petitioner firm on 18th December 2001. Consequently, vide final order dated 24th January 2001, the Collector, Rajkot ordered withdrawal of the said show cause and directed the firm that as change has occurred in its partners, it should apply to the Government for sanctioning change by charging required premium. When the request made by the petitioner-firm to permit change of user of the lands was turned down by the Collector on 16th October 2002, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No. 3 of 2003 against the said order, to which the Collector, Rajkot issued show cause notice to the petitioner-firm on 16th January 2003 alleging that the petitioner has committed breach of conditions of land granted as new tenure land. And ultimately, by an Order dated 5th April 2003, the District Collector, Rajkot ordered confiscation of the lands granted to the petitioner for breach of conditions of the grant. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner firm preferred revision application before the respondent no. 2 herein, which came to be rejected by a common order passed in Revision Application Nos.

(3.) of 2003 and 21 of 2003 dated 20/27th September 2004. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said common Order, the petitioner-firm has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Heard Shri Mehul S Shah, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-firm and Shri Hardik Soni, learned AGP for the respondents no. 1&2 at length.