Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
RAJVAIDYA GUNE’S SHAHU ARYOUSHADHIKARKHANA LTD. & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE COLLECTOR OF KOLHAPUR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/09/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arise against the judgment
dated August 31, 1990 made in W.P. No. 3278/81 by the High
Court of Bombay. The admitted facts are that the appellants
had from the Government 4 acres of land on April 5, 1946 for
construction of Karkhana in the industrial zone subject to
the following conditions
:-
"(a) The land (and the building to
be constructed thereon) should be
used for the purpose for which it
is granted, viz. Manufacture and
sale of Ayurvedic Medicines, and
conducting an Ayurvedic School or
College, and an Ayurvedic Hospital.
(b) The management of the Shahu
Aryopushadhi Karkhana should agree
to abide by all the building rules
and regulations of he Kolhapur
Municipal Borough ; and
(c) The management should also
agree to purify its discharges to
such extent as may be laid down by
the Municipality from time to time
and let them out in the Municipal
drains and sewage at such intervals
and at such times as may be fixed
by the Municipality from time to
time."
On the inspection made by the Collector, he found that
1 Hectare 29 acres of land allotted to him was to be vacant;
that he had the information that the appellant was
attempting to alienate the property; and that the
appellants had not used the assigned land in compliance of
the three conditions enumerated hereinbefore. Therefore,
notice was given to the appellant as to why the land could
not be resumed; If no reply was not received within 10 days
from the date of the receipt of the letter, it was to be
presumed that the appellants had no cause or grievance for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
resumption of the land by the Government. After passage of
two years, they gave reply on February 5, 1980. An order
came to be passed after consideration of the submissions
made by the appellants on September 5, 1981 rejecting the
contentions opposing presumption of the land. Calling that
order in question, they filed a writ petition in the High
Court. The High Court in the above writ petition had
dismissed the same.
Shri V.N. Ganpule, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellants, contended that under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the Collector has no power to
resume the land and that, therefore, the action taken by the
Collector is without authority of law. We find no force in
the contention. Admittedly, the Collector being the Chief
Executive, Revenue Head of the District and the property
being situated within Kohlapur District, he had the
competence to inspect the land; he found that the land was
not used for the purpose for which the grant was made under
the Government Grant Act. Consequently, he noticed that
there was a breach of the covenants in the grant, a notice
was issued to the appellants as to why the lands granted in
their favour should not be resumed. He had power and
competence to initiate the action for cancellation of
grant and for resumption thereof. Even belated show cause
notice was duly considered by the District Collector who
refused to accede to the request made to him. Consequently,
the resumption became valid. The High Court, therefore, has
not committed any error of law in this behalf.
It was also contended in the High Court that subsequent
to the resumption order passed by the Collector followed by
actual resumption, the Government have passed a resolution
on November 21, 1987 for regrant subject to the conditions
mentioned thereunder. We do not have the advantage to see
the grounds on which the re-grant was sought to be made etc.
However, the High Court refused to go into that question. It
may be open to the appellants to make an application to the
District Collector and it is for the District Collector to
consider and dispose it of according to already made a
representation before the Commissioner and it was not
considered. It is seen that the direction was to make
representation before the Collector and not the
Commissioner. It was a misconceived action taken by the
appellants. He did not avail of the remedy as directed by
the High Court. Therefore, we cannot go into that question.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.