SATISH SABHARWAL & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

  A
                     SATISH SABHARWAL & ORS. ETC.
                                          v.
                      STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

                              DECEMBER 20, 1986

        [P.~. BHAGWATI, C.J., V. KHALID AND G.L..QZA. JJ.]

          Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966; ss.44 & 257-Govern-
    ment-Whether has power to revise suo motu order passed by
    Collector-Cancellation of permission to use land for non-agricultural
  C purposes-State to pay compensation for cost incurred on project set up
    on the land. · ·· ."

            The petitioner-appellant carrying on the business or exporting
      frozen meat or bofl"aloes, sheep and goat, sought to esbblish an abat-
      toir, meat processing plant and a cold storage in a riots prone area near
  D Bombay •.The site was situated on the bank or a river whose water is
      used for purposes of drinking and washing, besides religious usage, by
      the inhabitants of the surrounding villages- The Sarpanch or the Group
      Gram Panchayat granted no objection certificate. The District Collec-
    . tor granted permission to use the land for non-agricultural purposes for
      the said plant nnder s.44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966
  E on April S, 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 or emuent from the abattoir
    Into the river would pollute the river waler which was used for drinking
 f purposes. The Govtrnment issued a show cause notice to the appellants
    on October 7, 1983 nnder s.257 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:                                    ·

 G     ·-   Aggrieved by the said order' the appellants med a petition in the
      High Court nnder Arts- 226 and 227 "r the Constitution for quashing
      the decision or the Government cancelling the permission.

             The High Court upheld the order of the Government but directed
·--._ it lo pay compensation for the cost incurred in setting up the project up
  H lo October 7, 1983, being the dale when show cause notice was issued-


                                        892
                 S. SABHARWAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [OZA, J.]                893

             The petitioners appealed to this Court by special leave against
        upholding of the impugned order while the State preferred the appeal          A
        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 Government. It also held
        the appellants entitled to compensation in lieu of costs incurred on the      B
        project and interest on the compensation amount for the period subse-
        quentto October, 7, 1983.

              Pronouncing the reasons, the Court,

               HELD: The High Court bas examined the scope of ss.44 and 257
        of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 in detail and after con-           C
        sidering all the facts and circumstances come to the conclusion that the
        Government bad the power to revise even suo motu orders passed by
        the Collector and found that the grounds on the basis or which the
        Government acted existed and, therefore, the action on the part of the
        Government was bona fide and in public interest, although it did not          D
        act diligently, hut still in public interest the High Clllµ1 maintained the
        order passed by the Government with the direction to compensate the
        persons concerned. The view taken by the High Court appears to be
        correct. There is no reason to interfere with it. [879D-F]

              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDKTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 256 E
        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 Jeth- F
        malani, Tushad Cooper, G. Subramaniam, Ashok Sharma, Ajai Singh
        Chandal, V.S. Desai, A.S. Bhasme, A.M. Khanwilkar for the appear-
        ing parties.

            K. Parasaran, Attorney General, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Indu
        Malhotra for the lnterveners.                                G

    +         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 H
    894                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS           (1987] 1 S.C.R.

A 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 in-
B corporated 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
C 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 modem 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
D admeasuring about 68,327 square n;etres. This site was included in
  "U" Zone in the Bombay Metropolitan Regional Plan for the period
  from 1970 to 199 l prepared .under the Bombay Metropolitan Region
  Development Authority Act, 1974, "U" Zone denoting that the land
  was future urbanisable area.

E       The site is situated at a distance of 2 kilometres from Bhiwandi
  Town having Muslim majority which has been a trouble spot for com-
  munal riots for past some years, with the surrounding villages of
  Savandhe, Gorsai, Shelar, Chavindra, Pogoan and Bhorpada situate at
  a distance of 1/2 km, 1 km, 1/2 km, 1'h km, 2 km, and 2kms:
  respectively. These villages have a population of about 400, 1500,
F 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 wash-
  ing by the inhabitants of the surrounding villages and where the
  Hindus from Bhiwandi and the aforesaid surrounding villages immerse
  their Ganesh idols on the Ganpati Immersion Day.
G
        After selecting the site the petitioners obtained the requ1S1te
  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
H the petitioner, the Panchayat would not have any objection what-
              S. SABHARWAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA !OZA, J.l               895

     soever as it will increase the income of the Panchayat. Petitioners A
     (High Court) obtained the consent from the Maharashtra Prevention
     of Water Pollution Board under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Preven-
     tion of Water Pollution Act, 1969 to discharge the effluents from the
     proposed plant in the water pollution prevention area of U1has 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 ii
     the Director General of Technical Development on 8th January 1981.
     On 11.8.80 Collector Thane was approached for permission to use the
     land for non-agricultural 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 tetrt1s
     and conditions.
                                                                                 c
          . It appears that thereafter some trouble started and the villagers
     round about Bhiwandi town which included also the villages men-
      tioned above addressi;d a complaint to one Shri Sadanand Yarde;
      M.L,A. from Bombay, making the following grievances: (i) that the
      construction of the abattoir has been started without the permission of D
      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 E.
     which is the means o(Jivelihood 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 vi1lagers p
     therefore prayed that u-,der no circumstances, the abattoir should be
     permitted. Shri Yarde 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 Govemm«nt on 17.2.83 called for G
     a report in the matter from the Collector Thane who in tum called a
·+   report from the Tehsildar Thane and Tehsildar Thane in his tum
     issued a notice to all the parties including the prornciters of this project
     and on 7.3.83 recorded the statements of respeciive parties including
     Shri Rizwan Bubere, the holder of a General Power of Attorney and
     the Tehsildar sent his report on the sarne day lei the Colleet-Oi'. In tllli H
    896                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS           (1987) 1 S.C.R.

A meantime on 5.4.83 a detailed representation was received against the
  venture (abattoir) by the Revenue Minister of the State from the Sar-
  panch 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-
B struction work for a period of 15 days pending investigation and on
  30th April, 1983 the Government directed the Commissioner, 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 theGovern-
                                                                              -y-
                                                                              l
C 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
D order pending admission of the Writ Petition. Government filed their
  affidavit on 13.6.83 and stated that the Government was reconsider-
  ing 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.
E
        On 16.8.1983 one Dr. Vyas filed his Writ Petition before Ifie
  High Court being No. 2717 of 1983 challenging the order dated
  5.4.1982 of Additional Collector, Thane granting 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-interiffi stay
                                                                                  -
F was granted by the High Court. It appears that on a statement made by
  the Gov~rnment counsel that Government would take a final decision
  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 riskofthe persons concerned without prejudice to the writ petition.

G       On 7t.h 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
H heard the revision on the same day and by )lis order dated 25. l l. 1983
                 S. SABHARWAL v. STAIE OF MAHARASHTRA !OZA, J.l            897

        set aside the order of Additional Collector and cancelled the perrnis- A
        sion 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 consider- B
        able extent. Against the decision of the Minister cancelling the permis-
        sion granted by Additional Collector 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 C
         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 consider- D
         ing 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
i        the Goverriment acted existed and therefore the action on the part of
         the Government was bonafide and in public interest although the
         learned Judges felt that the Government did not act diligently but still E
        ·jn the public interest the High .Court maintained the order passed by
         the Government with the directions to compensate the persons con-
         cerned. 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 F
         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.




    +