PETITIONER:
SATISH SABHARWAL & ORS. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/12/1986
BENCH:
OZA, G.L. (J)
BENCH:
OZA, G.L. (J)
BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ)
KHALID, V. (J)
CITATION:
1987 SCR (1) 892 1986 SCC Supl. 686
JT 1987 (1) 63 1986 SCALE (2)1231
ACT:
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966; ss.44 & 257--Gov-
ernment--Whether has power to revise suo motu order passed
by Collector--Cancellation of permission to use land for
non-agricultural purposes--State to pay compensation for
cost incurred on project set up on the land.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner-appellant carrying on the business of
exporting frozen meat of buffaloes, sheep and goat, sought
to establish an abattoir, meat processing plant and a cold
storage in a riots prone area near Bombay. The site was
situated on the bank of a river whose water is used for
purposes of drinking and washing, besides religious usage,
by the inhabitants of the surrounding villages. The Sarpanch
of the Group Gram Panchayat granted no objection certifi-
cate. The District Collector granted permission to use the
land for non-agricultural purposes for the said plant under
s.44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 on April 5,
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 of effluent from the abattoir into the river
would pollute the river water which was used for drinking
purposes. The Government issued a show cause notice to the
appellants on October 7, 1983 under s.2S7 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.
Aggrieved by the said order the appellants fried a
petition in the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the
Constitution for quashing the decision of the Government
cancelling the permission.
The High Court upheld the order of the Government but
directed it to pay compensation for the cost incurred in
setting up the project up to October 7, 1983, being the date
when show cause notice was issued.
893
The petitioners appealed to this Court by special leave
against upholding of the impugned order while the State
preferred the appeal' 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 Gover-
ment. It also held the appellants entitled to compensation
in lieu of costs incurred on the project and interest on the
compensation amount for the period subsequent to October, 7,
1983.
Pronouncing the reasons, the Court,
HELD: The High Court has examined the scope of ss.44 and
257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 in detail and
after considering all the facts and circumstances came to
the conclusion that the Government had the power to revise
even suo moto orders passed by the Collector and found that
the grounds on the basis of which the Government acted
existed and, therefore, the action on the part of the Gov-
ernment was bona fide and in public interest, although it
did not act diligently, but still in public interest the
High Court maintained the order passed by the Government
with the direction to compensate the persons concerned. The
view taken by the High Court appears to he correct. There is
no reason to interfere with it. [879D-F]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 256 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
Jethmalani, Tushad Cooper, G. Subramaniam, Ashok Sharma,
Ajai Singh Chandal, V.S. Desai, A.S. Bhasme, A.M. Khanwilkar
for the appearing parties.
K. Parasaran, Attorney General, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Indu
Malhotra for the Interveners.
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
894
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 the High Court is
a private limited company incorporated for the purposes of
carrying among others the business of exporting frozen meat
of buffaloes, sheep and goats. The Al Kabeer Exports Pvt.
Ltd. alongwith other two took initiative in the business and
obtained an import licence, a project being 100% export-
oriented. The licence they obtained stipulated the entire
production of the plant to be exported for 10 years and the
construction and the operation of the project were to be
according to the standards of hygiene prevailing in the
European Economic Community Countries and of the U.S. Foods
and Drugs Administration. The plant was to be equipped with
the most modern equipments. The petitioners selected a site
of agricultural lands in village Savandhe in Bhiwandi Taluka
of Thane District, comprised in Survey No. 40/2, 41, 42, 44,
45 and 70 totally admeasuring about 68,327 square metres.
This site was included in “U” Zone in the Bombay Metropoli-
tan Regional Plan for the period from 1970 to 1991 prepared
under the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority
Act, 1974, “U” Zone denoting that the land was future urban-
isable area.
The site is situated at a distance of 2 kilometres from
Bhiwandi Town having Muslim majority which has been a trou-
ble spot for communal riots for past some years, with the
surrounding villages of Savandhe, Gorsai, Shelar, Chavindra,
Pogoan and Bhorpada situate at a distance of 1/2 kin, 1 km,
1/2 Inn, 11/2 km, 2 km, and 2kms. respectively. These vil-
lages have a population of about 400, 1500, 3000, 2500, 500
and 1500 respectively, majority of the population of all
these villages being Hindus. This site is situated on the
bank of river Kamawari whose water is used for the purposes
of drinking and washing by the inhabitants of the surround-
ing villages and where the Hindus from Bhiwandi and the
aforesaid surrounding villages immerse their Ganesh idols on
the Ganpati Immersion Day.
After selecting the site the petitioners obtained the
requisite permission from the relevant authorities and on
4.4.1980 they obtained permission from the Sarpanch of the
Group Gram Panchayat of Savandhe which certificate stated
that if the land comprised in the site of the plant was
converted into non-agricultural plot in favour of the peti-
tioner, the Panchayat would not have any objection what-
895
soever as it will increase the income of the Panchayat.
Petitioners (High Court). obtained the consent from the
Maharashtra Prevention of Water Pollution Board under Sec-
tion 28 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Water Pollution
Act, 1969 to discharge the effluents from the proposed plant
in the water pollution prevention area of Ulhas River basin
as notified under Section 18 of the Act subject to certain
terms and conditions. The proposed plant was registered as
an industry by’ the Director General of Technical Develop-
ment on 8th January 1981. On 11.8.80 Collector Thane was
approached for permission to use the land for non-agricul-
tural purposes for the said plant under Section 44 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Act, 1966. Collector granted the
said permission by his order dated 5.4.1982 subject to
certain terms and conditions.
It appears that thereafter some trouble started and the
villagers round about Bhiwandi town which included also the
villages mentioned above addressed a complaint to one Shri
Sadanand Varde, M.L.A. from Bombay, making the following
grievances: (i) that the construction of the abattoir has
been started without the permission of the Gram Panchayat,
(ii) that cows, bulls and buffaloes were to be slaughtered
in the abattoir, (iii) the abattoir was likely to pollute
the air giving rise to diseases endangering the health of
the villagers, (iv) that discharge of effluent from the
abattoir in the river would pollute the river water which
was used for drinking both by the villagers and cattle
thereby endangering the life of the villagers as well as the
cattle which is the means of livelihood of the villagers,
(v) that the prices of land would be reduced on account of
pollution thereby preventing the industrial development of
the villages and (vi) the religious feelings of the Hindus
in Bhiwandi town and the villages would be hurt since the
effluents from the abattoir would be discharged in the river
where traditionally Hindus were immersing their Ganesh
idols. The villagers therefore prayed that under no circum-
stances, the abattoir should be permitted. Shri Varde in his
turn alongwith a letter dated 24th January, 1983 forwarded
the said complaint to the Revenue Minister of the State
Government with a request to consider the objections of the
villagers and to stop the construction in the meanwhile. On
the basis of this letter it appears that the Government on
17.2.83 called for a report in the matter from the Collector
Thane who in turn called a report from the Tehsildar Thane
and Tehsildar Thane in his turn issued a notice to all the
parties including the promoters of this project and on
7.3.83 ‘recorded the statements of respective parties in-
cluding Shri Rizwan Bubere, the holder of a General Power of
Attorney and the Tehsildar sent his report on the same day
to the Collector. In the
896
meantime on 5.4.83 a detailed representation was received
against the venture (abattoir) by the Revenue Minister of
the State from the Sarpanch of Savandhe-Gorsai Group of Gram
Panchayat and others. In this representation more or less
similar grounds as were initially raised in representation
to the M.L.A. were raised. The Government by its order dated
28th April, 1983 directed the petitioners to stop the con-
struction work for a period of 15 days pending investigation
and on 30th April, 1983 the Government directed the Commis-
sioner, Konkan Division to submit his detailed report on the
complaint received from the villagers by holding an on-the-
spot inspection. The Commissioner made enquiries and
on-the-spot inspection on 9th and 11th May, 1983, submitted
his report on 17th May, 1983, it was received by the Govern-
ment on 18th May, 1983. By order dated 25.5.1983 Government
further stayed the construction for a period of one month.
On 7th June, 1983 Al Kabeer Exports Pvt. Ltd. and
others filed a petition before the High Court challenging
the order of stay granted by the Government and obtained an
ad-interim stay of the Government’s order pending admission
of the Writ Petition. Government filed their affidavit on
13.6.83 and stated that the Government was reconsidering the
matter and ultimately by order dated 14.6.83 High Court
admitted the writ petition and continued the interim relief
of stay granted but Government was directed to pass its
final orders in the matter.
On 16.8.1983 one Dr. Vyas filed his Writ Petition
before the High Court being No. 2717 of 1983 challenging the
order dated 5.4. 1982 of Additional Collector, Thane grant-
ing permission to the petitioners for converting the land to
non-agricultural use and prayed for stoppage of construction
work and on the same day ad-interim stay was granted by the
High Court. It appears that on a statement made by the
GoVernment counsel that Government would take a final deci-
sion in the matter on or before 15-10.83 the Court modified
its interim order passed earlier and permitted construction
work to continue at the risk of the persons concerned with-
out prejudice to the writ petition.
On 7th October, 1983 the Government issued a show-cause
notice in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 257 of
the Code and on 14.10.83 the petitioners were supplied with
the grounds on which the Government proposed to revise the
order of Additional Collector, Thane. The appellants herein
replied to the show-cause notice, and the grounds by their
written submissions dated 2.11.83. Hon’ble Minister heard
the revision on the same day and by his order dated
25.11.1983
897
set aside the order of Additional Collector and cancelled
the permission granted to the appellants to use the land for
purposes of their said project. In the meanwhile, on
18.11.83 violent riots had taken place directed against the
setting up of the abattoir in the village Savandhe and in
the clashes of rioters with the police personnel 4 persons
were killed, many others injured, and property was damaged
to a considerable extent. Against the decision of the Minis-
ter cancelling the permission granted by Additional Collec-
tor the petition was filed in the High Court on 5.12.83
under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the
decision of the Government and it is that petition which
gave rise to the present two appeals.
The main question which was raised before the High Court
and also before us about the scope of Section 257 of the
said Revenue Code and power of State Government in exercise
of revisional jurisdiction. It was also incidentally raised
that revisional powers could not be exercised beyond 90
days. Grounds under Article 19(1)(g) also were raised. The
learned Judges of the High Court have examined the scope of
Sections 44 and 257 of the Revenue Code in detail and after
considering all the facts and circumstances came to the
conclusion that the Government had the power to revise even
suo motu orders passed by Additional Collector and found
that the grounds on the basis of which the Government acted
existed and therefore the action on the part of the Govern-
ment was bonafide and in public interest although the
learned Judges felt that the Government did not act dili-
gently but still in the public interest the High Court
maintained the order passed by the Government with the
directions to compensate the persons concerned. Mainly it is
on this ground that the learned Judges of the High ‘Court
have maintained the order passed by the Government. After
hearing arguments at length, in our opinion, the view taken
by the High Court appears to be correct. We see no reason to
interfere with the view taken by the High Court, as we have
observed earlier. We therefore dismissed both the appeals.
P.S.S Appeals
dismissed.
898