Reliance wins Jamnagar land dispute as Gujarat HC upholds rejection of 33-year-late re-grant claim

In 1962, land at Village Navagam was granted to the predecessor-in-title of respondent No. 3 for cultivation, subject to a requirement that cultivation begin within two years.

The grant was cancelled in 1972 for breach of its conditions, and the land was recorded as Government waste land.

Respondent No. 3 sought re-grant in 2005, approximately 33 years after cancellation; the Collector rejected the request on limitation grounds in 2006.

On revision under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, the SSRD rejected Reliance Industries Limited’s application to be joined as a party and remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh consideration, including of a Government Resolution dated 16 March 1982.

The State had allotted the land to Reliance for its SEZ project in 2008, and possession had been handed over to it

1. Whether the SSRD was justified in setting aside the Collector’s rejection and remanding the re-grant request despite the approximately 33-year delay.

2. Whether the SSRD erred in rejecting Reliance’s application to be joined in the revision, given the State’s 2008 allotment of the land to Reliance and the possession delivered to it.

The Court considered Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, under which the SSRD exercised revisional jurisdiction.

It applied the principles of delay and laches, including that an unexplained and substantial delay may defeat a claim for discretionary relief and that a concluded cancellation cannot be reopened after the predecessor-in-title failed to challenge it during his lifetime.

The Court also considered the Government Resolutions dated 16 March 1982 and 3 January 1984; it held that the latter’s policy concerning long-resumed Government land, increased land value and non-agricultural utility weighed against re-grant after prolonged delay.

It considered Keshubhai Virbhanbhai Vala v. Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department as supporting the significance of delay and third-party interests, and distinguished State of Gujarat v. Harijan Jivabhai Jashabhai on its facts.

The predecessor-in-title did not challenge the 1972 cancellation, and respondent No. 3 offered no convincing explanation for waiting until 2005 to seek re-grant.

Nor was evidence produced that the original allottee had taken possession or cultivated the land as required by the grant.

By the time of the State’s 2008 allotment to Reliance, the Collector had already rejected the re-grant request; the pending revision did not itself establish an injunction or other prohibitory order against the allotment.

The allotment conditions preserved existing rights and made the allotment subject to court orders, but the Court found no operative order preventing the State from handing over possession.

The SSRD therefore erred in remanding the matter without properly addressing the delay and the relevant Government policy.

The Court found Harijan Jivabhai Jashabhai distinguishable because, unlike that case, the land here had already been allotted and possession delivered to the company.