LexDIPAK BABARIA & ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 71 DIPAK BABARIA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 836 of 2014) JANUARY 23, 2014 [H.l. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.) GUJARAT TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS (VIDARBHA REGION AND KUTCH AREAS) ACT, 1958: s. 89-A - Sale of agricultural land for industrial purpose - No industry set up - Minister permitting further sale of land A 8 c for industrial purpose - Held: Where purchaser fails to start industrial activity, s. 89A (5) requires the Collector to hold an enquiry, he is expected to pass an order that the land shall 0 vest in Government Then the land shall be disposed of by Government having regard to the use of the land --In the instant case, Collector did not take any steps - Instead Minister granted permission for sale of land in favour of further purchaser - This is clearly a case of dereliction of duties by Collector and dictation by the Minister - Direction of State E Government dated 18.12.2009 and consequent order issued by Collector on 15.1.2010 are arbitrary, and bad in law for being in violation of the scheme and the provisions of ss. 89 and 89A -- Direct sale of land by first purchaser to subsequent purchaser is also bad in law, and inoperative - Consequently, F there will be an order ·that the land shall vest in State Government free from all encumbrances - The vesting order, however, has to be on payment of appropriate compensation to the purchaser as the Collector may determine - If the second purchaser is interested in its proposed project, it shall G pay the stated amount to Government - Direction given for adjustment of the amount paid - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.142. 71 H 72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R. A ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Departmental notings - Held: A higher civil servant normally has a varied experience and Ministers ought not to treat his opinion with scant respect - If Ministers want to take 8 a different view, there must be compelling reasons, and the same must be reflected on the record - In the instant case, the Secretaries had given advice in accordance with the statute and yet the Minister has given a direction to act contrary thereto and permitted the sale which is clearly in breach of the statute. c Land policy - Held: Considering the scheme of the Act, the process of industrialization must take place in accordance therewith - If the law requires a particular thing should be done in a particular manner it must be done in that way and none D other -State Government cannot ignore the policy intent and the procedure contemplated by the statute - In the instant case, State Government could have acquired the land, and then either by auction or by considering the merit of proposal, allotted it. E Power of statutory authority - Exercise of by Government - Minister permitting further sale - Held: Under s. 89A(3), Government is appellate authority where Collector does not grant a certificate for purchase of bonafide industrial purpose - Thus, powers of statutory authority have been exercised by F Government which is an appellate authority - Minister's direction clearly indicates an arbitrary exercise of power - Orders passed by Government cannot, therefore, be sustained - Dictating the Collector to act in a particular manner on the assumption by Minister that it is in the interest G of industrial development would lead to a breach of the mandate of statute framed by legislature - Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Areas) Act, 1958 -- s. 89-A. H The appellant filed a writ petition in public interest DIPAK BABARIA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 73 ORS. before the High Court challenging primarily the A permission granted by the Collector to respondent No.4 i.e., lndigold Refinery Limited, to sell certain parcels of agricultural land situated in District Kutch, which were said to have been purchased earlier by respondent No.4, for industrial purpose, in favour of respondent No.5 i.e. B Alumina Refinery Limited, as being impermissible under the provisions ss. 89 and 89A of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Areas) Act, 1958 (Tenancy Act, 1958). It was the case of the appellant that there was no provision for any further c transfer of agricultural land from one industrial purchaser to any third party, once again, for industrial purpose when the first purchaser of agricultural land had defaul
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.