SATISH SABHARWAL & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 892 · Decided: 20-12-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SATISH SABHARWAL & ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. 
DECEMBER 20, 1986 
[P.~. BHAGWATI, C.J., V. KHALID AND G.L..QZA. JJ.] 
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966; ss.44 & 257-Govern-
ment-Whether has power to revise suo motu order passed by 
Collector-Cancellation of permission to use land for non-agricultural 
C purposes-State to pay compensation for cost incurred on project set up 
on the land. · ·· ." 
The petitioner-appellant carrying on the business or exporting 
frozen meat or bofl"aloes, sheep and goat, sought to esbblish an abat-
toir, meat processing plant and a cold storage in a riots prone area near 
D Bombay •. The site was situated on the bank or a river whose water is 
used for purposes of drinking and washing, besides religious usage, by 
the inhabitants of the surrounding villages- The Sarpanch or the Group 
Gram Panchayat granted no objection certificate. The District Collec-
. tor granted permission to use the land for non-agricultural purposes for 
the said plant nnder s.44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 
E on April S, 1982. 
At this stage the villagers raised objections to the setting-up of the 
plant and made a representation to the Revenue Minister alleging that 
construction of the abattoir and discharge or emuent from the abattoir 
Into the river would pollute the river waler which was used for drinking 
f 
purposes. The Govtrnment issued a show cause notice to the appellants 
on October 7, 1983 nnder s.257 of the Code for .cancellation of the order 
of the District Collector. The Minister heard the revision and by. his 
' order dated November 25, 1983 set aside the order of the District 
Collector: 
· 
G 
· -
Aggrieved by the said order' the appellants med a petition in the 
High Court nnder Arts- 226 and 227 "r the Constitution for quashing 
the decision or the Government cancelling the permission. 
The High Court upheld the order of the Government but directed 
·--._ it lo pay compensation for the cost incurred in setting up the project up 
H lo October 7, 1983, being the dale when show cause notice was issued-
892 
• 
+ 
S. SABHARWAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [OZA, J.] 
893 
The petitioners appealed to this Court by special leave against 
upholding of the impugned order while the State preferred the appeal A 
by special leave against the direction for payment of the compensation. 
Dismissing the cross appeals this Court confirmed the judgment 
of the High Court upholding the order of the Government. It also held 
the appellants entitled to compensation in lieu of costs incurred on the 
B 
project and interest on the compensation amount for the period subse-
quentto October, 7, 1983. 
Pronouncing the reasons, the Court, 
HELD: The High Court bas examined the scope of ss.44 and 257 
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 in detail and after con-
C 
sidering all the facts and circumstances come to the conclusion that the 
Government bad the power to revise even suo motu orders passed by 
the Collector and found that the grounds on the basis or which the 
Government acted existed and, therefore, the action on the part of the 
Government was bona fide and in public interest, although it did not D 
act diligently, hut still in public interest the High Clllµ1 maintained the 
order passed by the Government with the direction to compensate the 
persons concerned. The view taken by the High Court appears to be 
correct. There is no reason to interfere with it. [879D-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDKTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 256 E 
of 1985 and 4875 of 1984 . 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24th August, 1984 of the 
Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 4232 of 1983. 
Ram Jethmalani, Khatu Cooper, S.B. Bhasme, Ms. Rani Jeth-
F 
malani, Tushad Cooper, G. Subramaniam, Ashok Sharma, Ajai Singh 
Chandal, V.S. Desai, A.S. Bhasme, A.M. Khanwilkar for the appear-
ing parties. 
K. Parasaran, Attorney General, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Indu 
Malhotra for the lnterveners. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
OZA, J. These two appeals were heard by us and by our order 
dated March 10, 1986 we maintained the judgment of the High Court 
and dismissed both the appeals, by this order we modified the order H 
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1987] 1 S.C.R. 
A for compensation which was passed by the High Court. Our reasons 
for the same are: 
The necessary facts for the disposal of these appeals are that the 
appellant in one of the appeals before this Court who was the third 
petitioner before th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.