JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The short facts of the case are that the petitioner
was granted land as per the order dtd.18.09.1974
admeasuring 9790 sq mtr bearing survey no.111 of the
waste land at Village Madhapar for oil mill and ginning
mill. It appears that there was some change in the
partnership and the proceedings were initiated for breach
of the condition. Ultimately, it was held by the
Collector that there is no breach of the condition and
the notice was withdrawn. It appears that, as per the
petitioner since it was not possible to continue with the
activitiy of Ginning Mill, which was in addition to Oil
Mill, the activity of manufacturing Badami Coal was
undertaken and as per the petitioner the application was
also made by giving intimation and granting permission
for such purpose but no reply was given by the Authority
in this regard. In the meantime, once again the notice
came to be isused for breach of the condition on two
grounds, one was that there was change in the partnership
firm and the another was that the portion of the land is
used for manufacturing for Badami Coal. The proceedings
initially resulted into forfeiture of the land and
thereafter the matter was carried before the Revenue
Tribunal and the matter was remanded. Thereafter, the
District Collector once again considered the matter and
as per the order dtd.26th March, 1987, the District
Collector found that as earlier for change of the
partnership firm the show cause notice was already
withdrawn, the proceedings cannot be initiated for the
second time for the same cause. So far as the change of
use is concerned, the District Collector found that the
land is used for industrial purpose and the Government
has also granted exemption for ULC and there is a policy
of the Government to encourage to industry, and,
therefore, it would be just and proper to withdraw the
notice and ultimately notice came to be withdrawn. It
appears that the matter was taken up for revision
suo-motu by the State Government and it was found by the
State Government that by change of partnership firm there
is indirect breach of the condition and there is change
of use without prior permission, and, therefore, as there
is breach of the condition the order is passed by the
State Government for termination of the grant and the
land is ordered to be forfeited. It is under these
circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this
Court by preferring this petition.
(2.)Heard Mr.Shah, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.Prachhak, learned A.G.P. for the
respondent authorities.
Mr.Shah, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that even as on today, the land is
used for Oil Mill and for manufacturing of Badami Coal,
and, therefore, the land is as such used for industrial
purpose. He submitted that for the ground for change of
partnership, once the notice having been dropped earlier,
it was not open for the Government to initiate the
proceedings on the same ground and he submitted that it
is not a case where the original partners are not there
at all in the partnership firm, but some partners are
added is only the change. He also submitted that so far
as the change of use is concerned, the intiation and the
application was made but the same was not responded to
and the said averments made in the petition at Grounds
(I) at Para-13 is not controverted. He also submitted
that in any case the authority ought not to have passed
the order of forefeiture of the land and could have
considered the matter for imposition of suitable penalty.
(3.)Mr.Prachhak, learned A.G.P. has supported the order
passed by the State Government. Howeve, on the aspects
of penalty Mr.Prachhak, learned A.G.P. is not in a
position to oppose the contention as to why the authority
has not considered the question of penalty and the harsh
action of forefeiture of the land is taken.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.