# PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT. LTD. AND ANR v. ST A TE OF GUJARAT AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2004] Supp. 5 S.C.R. 552
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2004-10-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 6798-6799 of 2004
- **Bench:** K.G. BALAKRlSHNAN, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/palitana-sugar-mills-pvt-ltd-and-anr-v-st-a-te-of-gujarat-and-ors-20217
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

Gujarat Agricultura/Land Ceiling Act, 1960/Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976/Bombay Land Revenue Code,
1879~Bid LandC Exclusion from purview of Agricultural Land Ceiling Act and covered by
Urban Land Act-Sale of the /and-Revenue mutation in the name of
purchaser-Development thereof after sanction of plan except the land
reserved for University-Issue regarding coverage of Land under Agricultural
Land Ceiling Act or Urban Land Act decided by the Authority, High Court
and Supreme Court in favour of the purchaser-After lapse of reservation of
D land for University order to sanction plan for its development passed by High
Court and Supreme Court-Despite payment of all the dues plan not
sanctioned-After decision of Supreme Court concerned Authorities issued
show cause Notices with regard to disputes already decided and passed
orders contrary to the order of Supreme Court on the ground that full facts
were not placed before the Court-Land mutated in the name of StateE Applications for clarification and initiation of contempt proceedings by
purchaser-Dismissal of applications by High Court-On appeal, held: The
issues reopened by the Authority were already decided by Supreme CourtSuch an attempt would amount to contempt of this Court-The issues already
covered by earlier proceedings reached finality and hence cannot be
F reopened-Authorities directed to comply with the orders of Supreme CourtSaurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance.
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 141-Precedent-Judgment of
Supreme Court-Ignored on the ground that full facts had not been placed
before the Court-Held: Such an attempt is perverse and amounts to gross
G contempt of Court-Contempt of Court.
The land in question comprising of survey No.469/1, 470/1, 47112, 471/
3 and 472, being a Bid Land was excluded from the purview of Gujarat
Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960. The land was sold to the appellants.
After enforcement of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the land
II
552
PALITANASUGARMILLS PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF GUJARAT
553
was covered under that Act. In 1976 Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling A
(Amendment) Act, 1972 came into force amending the original Act so as to
bring Bid Land within its purview. Revenue Department thereafter clarified
that the land in question would be governed by Urban Land Act and not
Agricultural Land Act. Hence the proceedings regarding the sale of the land
to the appellant under Agricultural Land Act were dropped. Revision against B
the order was dismissed finally concluding the proceedings under
Agricultural Land Act. Right and title entry No. 1950 was entered in the
revenue records in the name-Of appellants and the same was certified in 1979
finally in view of Notice under Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and no
objections were raised against it.
Competent Authorities sanctioned Scheme u/s 21 of Urban Land Act
pursuant to which appellants developed the lands except the land in Survey
No. 469/1 which was reserved for University.Municipal Corporation filed Writ
Petition seeking setting aside of the order sanctioning the scheme and seeking
direction to the Authority to decide the proceedings under Agricultural Land
c
~
D
State Government granted no objection in respect of lands in Survey
Nos. 470/1 and 471/2, but refused the same in respect of other land except
Survey No.469/1. Against the order of refusal of no-objection, appellants filed
writ petition wherein appellant was permitted to do construction at its own
risk. Appellant made representation to State Government that they were being E
harassed. State Government asked the appellants that his representation
would be considered on unconditional withdrawal of his petitions agains, the
Government. Hence proceedings initiated by appellants were withdrawn.
Thereafter, the Authority held that the revenue mutation entry No.1950 was
legal and valid, by its order dated 10.7.1992. It was also held that proceedings F
under Agricultural Land Act would not be in respect of t

## Text

_Characters 0–39,978 of 79,118. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39978 for what follows._

A
B
PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
v.
ST A TE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
OCTOBER 15, 2004
[K.G. BALAKRlSHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]
Gujarat Agricultura/Land Ceiling Act, 1960/Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976/Bombay Land Revenue Code,
1879~Bid LandC Exclusion from purview of Agricultural Land Ceiling Act and covered by
Urban Land Act-Sale of the /and-Revenue mutation in the name of
purchaser-Development thereof after sanction of plan except the land
reserved for University-Issue regarding coverage of Land under Agricultural
Land Ceiling Act or Urban Land Act decided by the Authority, High Court
and Supreme Court in favour of the purchaser-After lapse of reservation of
D land for University order to sanction plan for its development passed by High
Court and Supreme Court-Despite payment of all the dues plan not
sanctioned-After decision of Supreme Court concerned Authorities issued
show cause Notices with regard to disputes already decided and passed
orders contrary to the order of Supreme Court on the ground that full facts
were not placed before the Court-Land mutated in the name of StateE Applications for clarification and initiation of contempt proceedings by
purchaser-Dismissal of applications by High Court-On appeal, held: The
issues reopened by the Authority were already decided by Supreme CourtSuch an attempt would amount to contempt of this Court-The issues already
covered by earlier proceedings reached finality and hence cannot be
F reopened-Authorities directed to comply with the orders of Supreme CourtSaurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance.
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 141-Precedent-Judgment of
Supreme Court-Ignored on the ground that full facts had not been placed
before the Court-Held: Such an attempt is perverse and amounts to gross
G contempt of Court-Contempt of Court.
The land in question comprising of survey No.469/1, 470/1, 47112, 471/
3 and 472, being a Bid Land was excluded from the purview of Gujarat
Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960. The land was sold to the appellants.
After enforcement of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the land
II
552
PALITANASUGARMILLS PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF GUJARAT
553
was covered under that Act. In 1976 Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling A
(Amendment) Act, 1972 came into force amending the original Act so as to
bring Bid Land within its purview. Revenue Department thereafter clarified
that the land in question would be governed by Urban Land Act and not
Agricultural Land Act. Hence the proceedings regarding the sale of the land
to the appellant under Agricultural Land Act were dropped. Revision against B
the order was dismissed finally concluding the proceedings under
Agricultural Land Act. Right and title entry No. 1950 was entered in the
revenue records in the name-Of appellants and the same was certified in 1979
finally in view of Notice under Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and no
objections were raised against it.
Competent Authorities sanctioned Scheme u/s 21 of Urban Land Act
pursuant to which appellants developed the lands except the land in Survey
No. 469/1 which was reserved for University.Municipal Corporation filed Writ
Petition seeking setting aside of the order sanctioning the scheme and seeking
direction to the Authority to decide the proceedings under Agricultural Land
c
~
D
State Government granted no objection in respect of lands in Survey
Nos. 470/1 and 471/2, but refused the same in respect of other land except
Survey No.469/1. Against the order of refusal of no-objection, appellants filed
writ petition wherein appellant was permitted to do construction at its own
risk. Appellant made representation to State Government that they were being E
harassed. State Government asked the appellants that his representation
would be considered on unconditional withdrawal of his petitions agains, the
Government. Hence proceedings initiated by appellants were withdrawn.
Thereafter, the Authority held that the revenue mutation entry No.1950 was
legal and valid, by its order dated 10.7.1992. It was also held that proceedings F
under Agricultural Land Act would not be in respect of the land.
Appellant filed Writ Petition for declaration that land in Survey No.469/
1 reserved for the University was free for development as the reservation had
lapsed.
Revenue Authority issued suo-motu Notice seeking to revise its order
dated 10.7.1992, against which appellants filed another Writ Petition. In the
meantime Urban Land Act was repealed and the repealing Act was adopted by
the State. High Court quashed the Notice and upheld the order dated 10.7.1992.
High Court also dismissed the Writ petition filed by the Municipal
G
H
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A Corporation. It also declared that reservation in respect of the University had
lapsed.
Appeal filed by Municipal Corporation before this Court against the
order of High Court regarding issue of Urban Land Act and Agricultural Land
Act was withdrawn. Appeal against the High Court order in respect of
B reservation of land in Survey No.469/1 was dismissed by this Court. The
appeal against the H,igh Court order in Writ Petition against notice dated
25.1.1996 was dismissed. Review petition filed by State Government in this
~
Court was also dismissed. In contempt petition this Court directed the
Authorities to sanction plan of land in survey No.469/1. Municipal
C Corporation sanctioned lay out plan for the same.
After dismissal of review petition, Deputy Collector again issued Notices
under BLR Code for deciding the title of land in Survey No.472 stating therein
that Supreme Court had decided the case in favour of the appellants due to
lack of full facts. Appellant moved recusal application before Revenue
D Department requesting to direct the Deputy Collector to recuse himself from
hearing of the show cause notices on the ground that he was deponent in review
petition before Supreme Court. However, Collector passed orders directing
City Mamlatdar to take possession of the lands.
Appellant submitted revised plans in respect of land in Survey No.469/
E 1, which is still pending. Deputy Collector passed order stating that land in
Survey No. 4.72 belonged to State Government. Mamlatdar passed an order
under Agricultural Land Act holding that the land in question was excess
land under Agricultural Land Act and hence they vested in the State
Government. Collector issued Notice for modification of Revenue Entry
F No.1950 in respect of Survey Nos.469/1. 470/1, 471/2, 471/3 and 472 in the
name of State Government The appeals against the orders before the Revenue
Secretary and the Collector are pending.
Appellant filed applications before High Court for clarification and
directions and for initiating contempt proceedings against the Collector,
G Deputy Collector and Mamlatdar. Entry No.1950 was finally modified on the
name of State Government without considering the orders passed by High
Court and this Court and the pending disputes before High Court.
High Court held that the orders passed by High Court had merged with
the order passed by this Court. High Court went into the maintainability of
H the contempt petition.
•
PALITANASUGARMILLS PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF GUJARAT
555
On appeal, this Court passed interim order directing the Authorities to A
sanction plan of Survey No.469/l and make entries in the revenue records. ·
This order was not complied with by the officers of the State Government.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: I. Most of the issues sought to be raised by the respondents are B
nothing but raising the same issues all over again which had been raised in
the earlier proceedings and were rejected by this Court and would amount to
replaying of a recorded cassette. The issues of the alleged violation of VIDI
Formula, Bid Land, ALC Act, Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance and the alleged
. lack of title to Survey No. 472 are the issues which had been raised before
the High Court and thereafter in this Court in Spech1! Leave Petition and C
again. in Review Petition but did not find favour either with this Court or the
High Court. The issues covered by the earlier proceedings and finally decided
by the Courts and thus reached finality, cannot be reopened. (576-B-C)
2. Despite appellant No. I bringing to the notice of the former Collector
that the said actionc;; his part of issuing the show cause Notices was in D
violation of this Court judgment and orders, he brushed aside the same and
proceeded to issue various ex parte orders in utter contempt of this Court. A
written representation requesting him to recuse himself from hearing the
show cause Notices on the ground that he had been a party to the earlier
proceedings as well as filed affidavits in those proceedings, he refused to E
recuse himself from hearing.the show cause notices and passed various orders
on the aforesaid show cause Notices. [577-E-F)
3. The judgments of this Court are binding on all the Authorities under
Article 141 of the Constitution of India and it is not open to any Authority to
ignore a binding judgment of this Court on the ground that the full facts had F
not been placed before this Court and/or the judgment of this Court in the
earlier proceedings had only collaterally or incidentally decided the issues
raised in the show cause notices. Such an attempt to belittle the judgments
and the orders of this Court is plainly perverse and amounts to gross contempt
of this Court. The then Deputy Collector has scant respect for the orders
passed by the Apex Court. [577-G, H; 578-A]
G
4. In so far as Survey No.469/l is concerned, several Notices were
issued by the appellants herein to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation
and the Collector, inviting their attention to the interim order passed in the
present appeals. The Authorities have not permitted the appellants to carry
out the construction on the said land on Survey No.469/1. Identification of H
556
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. S S.CR.
A the land has not also been done as directed by this Court. In the meanwhile,
the appellant paid development charges to Area Development Authority for
construction ofvarious blocks of Survey No.469/1. With respect to the land,
the Authorities have already entered the· name of the appellant in the revenue
records. Thereafter, the appellant's name was deleted from the said entry
B pursuant to the order of the Collector and the order of the City Mamlatdar.
Thereafter when the entry was made pursuant to the interim order of this
Court, it was incumbent on the City Mamlatdar to not only make the entry of
the area of Survey No.469/1 in the revenue records but also to make that
entry in the name of the applicant. This has not been done so far. (578-B-F)
C
5. The conduct and behaviour of the Collector, the Commissioner, the
Dy. Secretary to Revenue Department and the Deputy Commissioner are
improper. In respect of the specific direction issued by this Court in its interim
order, the Authorities are deliberately not complying with the orders passed
by this Court and have prevented the appellants from carrying out the
construction on the lands in question for the last four years even though the
\
D appellants have succeeded in ·an the petitions before this Court. All the
Authorities are directed to comply with the interim orders passed by this Court
in its letter and spirit. (579-E, F)
6. It is open to the appellants to pursue the appeals which have already
been filed by them and it is made clear that the Authority shall consider and
E decide only the matters which are not covered by and concluded by any of the
earlier orders passed by the Authorities, the High Court and of this Court.
(582-C)
7. As the Authorities have not issued planning permit with reference
to Survey No. 469/1, all the respondents/Authorities are directed to consider
F the application and sanction the plan of Survey No.469/1 and make entries in
the revenue records forthwith in accordance with law. (582-DI
8. It is open to the respondents to proceed against the appellant with
regard to the violation of permission granted to construct the dwelling units
on the lands in question after giving Notice and after affording sufficient
G opportunities to the appellant to put forth their grievance in this regard.
(582-F(
9. The Collector is directed to grant non agricultural permission in
respect of the land comprised in Survey No. 469/l after collecting the nonagricultural tax applicable at the time when the application was made by the
H applicant. Dispute, if any, with regard to the tax calculated and the rate has to
•
..
PALITANASUGARMILLS PVT. LTD. v. STATEOH}UJARAT[LAKSHMANAN,J.] 557
be agitated separately and collected later. The Commissioner of Municipal A
Corporation is directed to consider the application for sanction as per the
current development control rules and pass order in accordance with law.
Respondent Nos.I and 2 are also directed to collect non-agricultural
permission charges and conversion charges for the lands bearing Survey
Nos.470/1, 47112, 471/3 and 472. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are further directed B
to collect non-agricultural permission charges and conversion charges for
the land bearing Survey No.469/1 as prevalent on 24.2.2003, which is the
date on which the appellants had applied for the grant of non-agricultural
permission for the said survey number and on receipt of payment to grant the
non-agricultural permission in respect thereof as applied for.
(582-F-H; 583-A-B) C
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6798-6799 of
2004.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23/26.3.2004 and 2/5.4.2004 of the
Gujarat High Court in Misc. C. Application No. 2340 and 2341/2003 and in S.C. D
Application No. 1032of1996.
WITH
C.P. (C) No. 410/2004 in SLP (C) No. 1562/2002, C.P. (C) No. 411/2004 in
C.A. No. 5556 of2001.
Mukul Rohatgi, P.H. Parekh, E.R. Kumar, Sumit Goel, Ms. Sweety
Manchanda and H. Ahmadi for Mis. P.H. Parekh and Co., with him for the
Appellants.
C.A. Sundaram, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Archana P.Khopde, Urmesh
E
Triwedi and Jatin Zaveri with him for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted.
The present appeals were filed against the final judgment and order G
dated 23/26.03.2004 and 02/05.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in
Misc. Civil Application No. 2340 and 2341 of 2003 and in Special Civil
Application No. I 032 of 1996 whereby the High Court dismissed the application
filed by the appellants herein.
This case has a chequered history. Parties to this action are fighting a H
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A legal battle in the Court of law from 1971 onwards and still has not reached
the finality of the litigation for one reason or the other. .
The former Ruler of Bhavnagar was the owner of large extent of lands
in the area in question. The subject-matter of this litigation are the lands
owned by the former Ruler comprised in survey Nos. 469/1, 470/l, 471/2, 471/
B 3 and 472 Village Vadva aggregating about 952 acres being a Bid Land (a
pasture land) was excluded from the purview.of Gujarat Agricultural Land
Ceiling Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as "the ALC Act"). This decision
taken by the Collector on 26.03.1971 went through the motion of ·appeal
remand etc. and finally the Gujarat Re~enue Tribunal (for short "the GRT')
C held that the land in question being the bid land was excluded from the
purview of the ALC Act and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar for fixing
the ceiling of the other lands of the former Ruler. The review application filed
by the State Government was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 15.04.1977.
No further appeal was preferred by the State Government against the order
ofreview.
D
The former Ruler executed a registered sale deed in favour of the
appellants herein of the lands in the above survey nos. aggregating about 952
acres. The document was registered by the Collector.
In 1976, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter
E referred to as "the ULC Act") c;ame into force in the State of Gujarat and the
land in question being situated within the residential zone in the master plan
under the Town Planning Act fell within the definition of vacant land under
the ULC Act. On 01.04.1976, the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling (Amendment)
Act, 1972 came into force amending the definition of land so as to include
F the bid land as well within the definition of land. On a clarification sought by
the competent authority and the Under Secretary, Revenue Department and
the Additional Collector (ULC Act) informe9 the said authority that in view
of the overriding provisions contained in Section 42 of the ULC Act, the land
in question would be governed by the ULC Act and requested the said
authority to proceed under the said Act. On a further clarification sought by
G the competent authority and the Additional Collector, the Revenue Department
conveyed to the said authority the opinion of legal department of the State
Government that the land in question would be governed by the ULC Act and
not by the ALC Act. On receipt of a similar communication from the Revenue
Department, the Deputy Collector passed orders to drop the proceedings on
H the application filed by the former Ruler under Section 8 of the ALC Act for
PALITANASUGARMILLSPVT. LTD. v. STATEOFGUJARAT[LAKSHMANAN,J.]
559
a declaration that the sale effected by him vide aforementioned sale deed A
dated 31.03.1971 had not been done in anticipation of or with a view to defeat
the provisions of the ALC Act. Thus by proceedings dated 09.11.1979 of the
Deputy Collector, the ALC proceedings were concluded. Thereupon the right
and title entry No. 1950 was entered in the revenue records in the name of
the appellants in respect of the land in question and the same was certified
on 15 .11.1979. The said entry was certified finally in view of the earlier notice B
issued under Section 135(d) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879
(hereinafter referred to as "the BLR Code") Code and no objections were
raised. On 06.12.1979, the competent authority and the Additional Collector,
ULC issued a declaration in exercise of power under Section 21 (I) of the ULC
Act after verifying the title of the appel1ant holding that the appellant was C
entitled to retain the vacant land comprised in all the above survey nos.
admeasuring 930 acres and 4 gunthas for the purpose of construction of
dwelling units under Section 21 of the ULC Act. Pursuant to the sanction, the
appellants have already developed the lands wherein about 7000 dwelling
units have already come up. Presently, the appellant is seeking no objection
permission and sanction of lay out plan in respect of the land situated in D
survey No. 469/l which could not be developed earlier since there existed a
reservation on this land for Bhavnagar University.
The Bhavnagar Municipality filed a writ petition being spt";cil!_I Civil
Appeal No. 941 of 1980 for quashing and setting aside the order dated E
06.12.1979 granting exemption to the lands and sanctioning the scheme under
Section 21 of the ULC Act and a further direction to the authorities to
adjudicate and decide the ALC Act proceedings. The High Court passed an
interim order in favour of the Municipality restraining the appellants from
implementing the scheme. Various affidavits were filed by the competent
authority and the Deputy Collector under the ULC Act and the Deputy F
Collector to the Revenue Department stating that the title of the appellant to
the land in question was verified and the same was clear, authentic and valid
and the orders passed by the Deputy Collector under the. ALC Act and the
competent authority under the ULC Act were valid and legal. The High Court,
thereafter, vacated the ad-interim relief granted earlier to the Municipality and G
also permitted the appellant. herein (respondent No.8 therein) would be at
liberty to construct at its own risk and cost without claiming equities. The
said order is quoted below:
"Rule. To be heard in the !st or 2nd week; of September, 1980.
Having regard to the important questions arising in the petition; the H
A
B
c
560
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
matter may be placed before the learned Chief Justice for being assigned
to a Division Bench. Mr. Chhatrapati waives notice for R.1 to R. 7 Mr.
Mehta for R.8 and Mr. A.J. Pandya for R.~ also waive notice of Rule.
Ad-interim relief vacated on condition that the respondent No.8 will
be at liberty to construct at its own risk and costs and the facts of
such construction having been raised on the land shall not be a factor
in favour of respondent No.8. The above order is made at the request
of the learned advocate General who appears for Respondent No.8.
A.M. Ahmadi. J.
24.7.1980"
It is submitted that ever since the appellant had raised constructions
on the said land and the lands have been fully developed save and except
the lands in Survey No. 469/1 which was reserved for Bhavnagar University.
On 09.12.1981, the State Government granted no objection pennission in
respect of the lands in Survey Nos. 470/1 and 47112 by three separate orders.
D However, the Government refused the no objection pennission on the balance
three applications for the remaining lands excluding survey No. 469/1. The
grounds for refusal were ( 1) the scheme of exemption was under review by
the State Government under Section 34 of the ULC Act and (2) the SCA No.
941 of 1980 filed by the Bhavnagar Municipality was pending before the High
Court.
E
On 16.02.1982, the High Court passed an order in SCA No. 5059 of 1981
against the order dated 09 .12.1981 refusing the non-agricultural pennission by
the Deputy Collector in regard to the three applications referred to above. The
order reads thus:-
F
"Rule. To be heard with Sp!. C.A.941/80. Petitioner may construct on
the land at their own risk and cost but the fact of the such construction
will not be pleaded as a circumstance in their favour at the time of final
hearing of the matter. Affidavit to be completed by both the sides
within 6 weeks from today. To be expedited."
G
The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by its judgment in Revision Application
No. 1723 of 1983 dismissed the Revision Application of the State Government
in respec~ of the ALC Act proceedings. it is to be noticed that this revision
was filed by the State Government against the order dated 09 .11.1979 and
20.11.1979 whereby the Deputy Collector dropped the proceedings filed by
H the foriner Ruler under Sedion 8 of the ALC Act for declaration that the sale
\..
-
PALITANASUGARMILLS PVT. LTD. v. STATEOFGUJARAT[LAKSHMANAN,J.]
561
deed dated 3 l.03.1971 was not effected by him with a view to defeat the ALC A
Act. The said order thus finally concluded the proceedings under the ALC
Act. No further appeal was preferred by the State Government.
As several notices had been issued by the· revenue officials under the
Land Revenue Code and other laws in respect of the land in question and
the writ proceedings in the High Court and the stay order obtained, the B
appellant made a representation dated 27 .08.1990 to the State Government that
they were being harassed by the Officials by multifarious proceedings. On
17 .05.1991, the Government of Gujarat took a decision and communicated the
same to the appellant. The letter reads thus:
"No.ULC-2190-MRA-2-69-V-I
To
Sir,
The Managing Director,
Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd.,
C-2, Divya Apartments,
Mithakhali Gamala,
Navrangpura,
Ahmedabad
Revenue Department
Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar
Dated:l7.5.1991
Sub: Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976.
Regarding lands of survey Nos. 469/1,
470/1, 471/2, 471/3 and 472 of
Village Vadva Dist: Bhavnagar.
With reference to our letter dated 28.9.1990 addressed to the
Hon'ble Chief Minister on the aforesaid subject, I am_ directed to state
c
D
E
F
that on your producing necessary evidence regarding unconditional
.withdrawal of the petitions filed against the Government in the Hon'ble G
High Court of Gujarat with regard to this land, an appropriate decision
will be taken on your representation, which please note.
Yours faithfully,
Sd NA Shah
Under Secretary H
A
562
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
Revenue Department
Received on : 25 .5 .1991"
This letter is self-explanatory. Accordingly, all the proceedings ini~iated
by the appellant were withdrawn by them. In view of all the writ petitions filed
B by the appellant being withdrawn, the Deputy Collector on 27.09.1991 issued
a notice in Ceiling Case No. 1/83-84 and rule 108(6) of the BLR Code again
seeking to revise the right and title entry No 1950 on the grounds detailed
herein below, principally contending that the sale by the former Ruler in
favour of the appellant of the lands in question vide sale deed dated 3 l.03.1971
is invalid.
c
D
(a)
That title of survey No.472 did not vest with the petitioner;
(b)
That the subject lands being bid lands could not transferred;
(c)
That the transfer of the lands to the petitioner was in violation
of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance;
(d) Notice under the BLR code was not issued; and
(e)
On the above mentioned grounds the mutation entry was sought
to be cancelled.
The Deputy Collector issued another notice seeking to reopen the ALC
E proceedings which had been closed on the grounds that the Bid Lands were
not covered by the ALC Act as it then stood, and that it was the ULC Act
which would govern the land in question and not the ALC Act.
The Deputy Collector, Bhavnagar in Revision Case No. 1/83-84 after
considering the entire issues of the said notice held that ownership of the
F land in question was of the appellant. It was decided that the revenue
mutation entry No. 1950 as recorded in village form no. 6 was legal and valid.
It was also decided tp withdraw the show cause notice dated 27.9.1991 and
to drop all the proceedings commenced under the said notice.
G
By a separate order rendered in Ceiling Appeal No. 4/82-83 under the
ALC Act the Deputy Collector confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar dated
16.09.1982 in \. hich it had been, inter a/ia, held that the ALC Act did not
apply to the land in question. The Mamlatdar in the said order dated 16.09.1982
had followed the aforementioned order of the GRT dated 03.01.1974, whereby
the GRT had held that the land in question was not covered by the ALC Act.
H By the said order dated 16.09.1982, the Mamlatdar, inter alia, determined the
I
'·
~
. .
PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF GUJARA T[LAKSHMANAN,J.]
563
ceiling of the other lands of the fonner Ruler. It was thus held that no A
proceedings under the ALC Act would lie in respect of the land in question.
SURVEY NO. 469/1:
We shall now come to survey No. 469/1 which could not be developed
contemporaneously along with other survey nos. since there existed reservation B
on this land for Bhavnagar University.
A Writ petition was filed by the appellant in the High Court being
Special Civil Application No. I 0 I 08 of 1994, inter alia, praying that the
reservation of Survey No. 469/1 in favour ofBhavnagar University had fapsed
and for a declaration that the land is free for development by the appellant. C
This writ petition was filed on 10.08.1994. The Collector, Bhavnagar issued a
suo motu notice on 25.01.1996 seeking to revise the order dated 10.07.1992
rendered in Revision Case No. 1/83-84 which sought to revise the right and
title entry No. 1950 on the following grounds:
(a) That title to survey no. 472 did not vest with the petitioner;
(b) That the subject lands being bid lands could not be transferred;
(c) That the transfer of the lands to the petitioner was in violation
of the Saurashtra Gharkhed ordinance, and
(d) Notice underihe BLR code was not issued.
It is pertinent to notice that these issues are already covered by the
earlier proceedings finally decided in favour of the appellant. Against the
above show cause notice, the appellant filed Special Civil Application No.
I 032 of 1996 before the High Court wherein the High Court granted interim
D
E
stay against the said show cause notice. The Deputy Secretary, Revenue F
Department of the State Government filed affidavits in all connected matters
stating that the title of the appellant to the land in question is authentic and
valid. In the meanwhile, the ULC Act was repealed and the said repealing Act
was subsequently adopted by the State Legislature. The High Court, by
judgment rendered in Special C.A. No. 1032 of 1996, quashed the notice dated G
25.01.1996 of the Collector, seeking to revise the order passed by the Deputy
Collector dated 10.07.1992. The High Court, in the said judgment, has observed
that it was unfair, unjust and too late in the day for the Collector to raise
various issues such as illegal sale of bid land, breach of Saurashtra Gharkhed
Ordinance, ALC Act etc. which were closed and decided 3Yz years earlier. The
order of the Deputy Collector dated 10.07.1992 was upheld by the said judgment H
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A in which all the issues were concluded.
.B
By a separatejudgment pronounced on the same day, the High Court
rejected all the contentions raised by the Municipal Corporation in Special
Civil Application No. 941 of 1980 relating to sanction of ULC Act scheme and
the ALC Act proceedings. By a common judgment, a declaration was given
in Special Civil Application No. 10108of1994 that the designation of the land
bearing Survey No. 469/l reserved for Bhavnagar University had lapsed. The
issue of the ULC Act and the ALC Act was concluded by the said judgment
rendered in S.C.A. No 941 of 1980.
While granting leave, this Court directed status quo to be maintained
C in the SLP filed by the Municipal Corporation against the judgment in SCA
No. 941 of 1980. This Court again modified the interim order dated· 17.08.2001
directing _that it will be open to the appellant herein to construct dwelling
units on the lands in accordance with the approved or sanctioned scheme but
such construction would be at its own risk and shall not be a factor in its
D favour.
This Court also passed an order in Contempt Petition No. 142 of2002,
inter alia, directed the authorities to sanction the plan of Survey No. 469/1,
make revenue entries in the revenue records and collect the dues related to
the said land. Civil Appeal No. 5556 of 2001 was dismissed by this Court as
E withdrawn after a detailed hearing. Thus the issue of the ULC Act and the
ALC Act raised in the S.C.A. No. 941 of 1980 was finally concluded by the
said judgment. On 03.12.2002, this Court dismissed the civil appeals filed
against the order of the High Court in SCA No. 10108 of 1994 and batch
relating to reservation in Survey No. 469/l in, favour of the Bhavnagar
F University. Other SLPs being SLP No. 1561-63 of2000 filed against the order
dated 24.11.2000 in SCA No. 1032 of 1996 were heard and the SLPs were
dismissed by a detailed order. Thus, according to the appellant, various
issues regarding the right and the title of the lands in question were finally
concluded by the said judgment.
G
Review Petition No.33 of2003 was filed by the State Government before
this Court by raising the following grounds:-
r
(a)
That title to survey no. 4 72 did not vest with the petitioner;
(b) That the subject lands being bid lands could not be transferred;
H
(c)
That the transfer-of the lands to the petitioner was in violation
(
PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVf. LTD. v. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAKSHMANAN, J.]
565
of Sec.54 of Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance;
(d) Notice under the BLR code was not issued; and
(e) Violation of ALC Act.
A
According to the appellant, these very same issues are covered by the
earlier proceedings and finally decided in favour of the appellants in B
proceedings dated 27.09.1991, 10.07.1992, 25.01.1996, 24.11.2000, 05.12.2002,
06.03.1987, 10.07 .1992 and 14.11.2002 reported in Bhavnagar University v.
Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd and Ors., [2003) 2 SCC 111.
The affidavit was filed by Shri Kanti Lal Patel, the Collector of Bhavnagar
District (since retired), who was the second petitioner in the review petition C
as well as in the SLP.
On 21.01.2003, the Bhavnagar Municipality issued an order for
sanctioning the lay out plan in respect of R.S. No. 469/1. In the said order,
four conditions were stated including obtaining of non-agricultural permission D
from the Collector.
On 06.02.2003, this Court dismissed the Review Petition No. 33 of2003
in the following words:
"Delay condoned.
We have carefully gone through the review petition and the connected
papers. We do not find any merit in the review petition. The review
petition, accordingly, dismissed."
E
After the dismissal of the review petition again notice of inquiry was
issued by the Deputy Collector under Section 37(2) of the B.L.R. Code fo_r F
deciding the title ofR.S. No. 472 which issue was covered by earlier proceedings
finally decided in favour of the appellant. In proceedings dated 27.09.1991,
10.07.1992, 25.01.1996, 24.11.2000, 05.12.2002 and 06.02.2003 the Collector issued
9 show cause notices on 12.05.2003, 13.05.2003, 17.05.2003, 19.05.2003 and
22.05.2003 in regard to the dispute covered by earlier proceedings between G
the parties and finally decided in favour of the appellant. In the show cause
notices, the Collector stated as follows:-
"For taking a decision in that regard, due to lack of full facts before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that it does not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of the H
566
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
Hon'ble High Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 1032 of
1996 dated 24.11.2000. On the basis of this judgment, the illegal acts
committed by the "Mill" cannot be termed to be legal. In these
circumstances, show cause notice for breach of Section 66 of the
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 is hereby issued/given."
· B
The appellant moved recusal application before the Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department with a request to direct the Collector to recuse himself
from the hearing of the aforementioned show cause notices issued by him.
Another reminder was issued on 21.07.2003. The Deputy Secretary wrote a
letter to the appellant stating that no administrative directions could be issued
C to the Revenue Department, to the Collector to state the aforementioned
proceedings as he was discharging quasi-judicial functions.
On 29/30.08.2003, the Collector Shri Kantilal Patel (a day prior to
retireinent) has passed 6 orders against the appellant and directed the City
Mamlatdar to take possession of the Lands.' The said orders were based on
D the self same grounds concluded in favour of the appellant. The said grounds
E
F
G
are:-
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(t)
Sec 54 of Saurashtra Gharkhed.
Bid Land.
N.A. Permission, Breach the conditions of ULC Act scheme.
N.A. conditions breached.
N.A. conditions breached.
N.A. conditions breached.
According to the appellant, the Collector had passed orders despite
recusal application by the appellant on the ground that he was the deponent
in: review petition No. 33 of2003 and in another affidavit in C.A. No. 5556 of
200 l before this Court wherein the same allegations made in the show cause
notice were obtaining against the appellant.
On 09.09.2003, the appellant submitted its revised plans of Survey No.
469/l and submitted to the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation for sanctioning
the lay out and building plans in view of the Development Control Rules was
revised by the State Government vide notification dated 01.09.2003. Those
plans are still pending for sanction. On 11.09.2003, the Deputy Collector
H passed an order against the appellant in respect of the land in Survey No.
PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT.LTD. v. ST A TE OF GUJARA T[LAKSHMANAN, J.]
567
·<'
472 was of the State Government. According to the appellant, this issue is A
covered by earlier proceedings finally decided in favour of the appellant and
referred to in paragraph supra. On 15.09.2003, the Mamlatdar A.L.T passed an
~
order under the ALC Act against the appellant and held that the lands in
question were excess land under the ALC Act and, therefore, all lands ir.
question were vest in the State Government. According to the appellant, the B
ALC Act proceedings were concluded in the earlier proceedings dated
06.03.1987 and 10.07.1992. On 16.09.2003, the Collector issued a notice for
modification of Revenue Entry No. 1950 in respect of survey Nos. 469/l, 470/
..._J
l, 471/2, 471/3 and 472 in the name of the State Government. Though the said
right and title entry was confinned by the Deputy Collector vide order dated
10.07.1992 and the same were upheld by this Court. Against the respective c
orders of the Collector, the Deputy Collector and the Mamlatd_ar ALT, the
appellant filed appeals before the Revenue Secretary and the Collector of
Bhavnagar District respectively. The appeals are pending.
On 27. l l .2003, the appellant moved the High Court of Gujarat in Misc.
Civil Application No. 2340 of2003 for clarification and directions and second D
Misc. Civil Application No. 2341 of 2003 for initiating contempt proceedings
against the Collector Kantilal Patel, the Deputy Collector and the Mamlatdar
ALT. The right and title Entry No. 1950 was finally modified by the Collector
office on the name of State Government in the Revenue Records in respect
of all Survey Nos. without considering the orders passed by the High Court E
and of this Court as well as pending dispute before the High Court for the
same and without hearing the objections of the appellant. On 23.03.2004, the
High Court held that its order dated 24.11.2000 passed in SCA No. 941 of 1980
..
had merged with the order of 14.11.2002 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal
No. 5556 of 2001 filed by the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation which was
dismissed as withdrawn.
F
However, after holding so that its order .had merged with the
aforementioned order of this Court, the High Court instead of staying its
hands went into the maintainability of the contempt petition and passed
orders thereon.
G
An interim order was passed by this Court on 05.05.2004 directing the
authorities to sanction the plan of Survey No. 469/l and make entries in the
revenue records. According to the appellant, this order was not complied with
the officers of the State Government.
We heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel ably assisted by H
568
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
>·
A Mr. P.H. Parekh for the appellants and Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior
counsel ably assited by Ms. Hemantika Wahi for the contesting respondents.
We also heard other learned counsel for the respective parties. Both the
learned counsel invited our attention to the pleadings filed in several volumes,
annexures, orders passed by the authorities and the judgments rendered by
B
the Tribunal, High Court and of this Court and made elaborate and lengthy
submissions. Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel, submitted that the High
Court had no jurisdiction to make an observation as regards the merits of the
two applications preferred by the appellants despite it having expressly come
to the conclusion that since the order of the High Court had merged with the
~-
order of this Court. Such application would lie only before this Court. He
c would further submit that the High Court was in gross error in dismissing the
contempt petition on merits despite having held that the order in respect of
which the contempt had .been committed had merged with the orders passed
by this Court. Having said so, it was wholly beyond the domain of the High
Court to comment upon the merits of the contempt petition. The said
D
observation thus made in relation to the contempt petition were made by a
Court which on its own analogy was bereft of jurisdiction to proceed as it
is well considered that petition for contempt only lies before the Court whose
order is violated.