http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5

PETITIONER:

SATISH SABHARWAL & ORS. ETC.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/12/1986

BENCH:

OZA, G.L. (J)

BENCH:

OZA, G.L. (J)

BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ)

KHALID, V. (J)

CITATION:

1987 SCR (1) 892 1986 SCC Supl. 686

JT 1987 (1) 63 1986 SCALE (2)1231

ACT:

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966; ss.44 & 257--Gov-

ernment--Whether has power to revise suo motu order passed

by Collector--Cancellation of permission to use land for

non-agricultural purposes--State to pay compensation for

cost incurred on project set up on the land.

HEADNOTE:

The petitioner-appellant carrying on the business of

exporting frozen meat of buffaloes, sheep and goat, sought

to establish an abattoir, meat processing plant and a cold

storage in a riots prone area near Bombay. The site was

situated on the bank of a river whose water is used for

purposes of drinking and washing, besides religious usage,

by the inhabitants of the surrounding villages. The Sarpanch

of the Group Gram Panchayat granted no objection certifi-

cate. The District Collector granted permission to use the

land for non-agricultural purposes for the said plant under

s.44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 on April 5,

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 of effluent from the abattoir into the river

would pollute the river water which was used for drinking

purposes. The Government issued a show cause notice to the

appellants on October 7, 1983 under s.2S7 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.

Aggrieved by the said order the appellants fried a

petition in the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the

Constitution for quashing the decision of the Government

cancelling the permission.

The High Court upheld the order of the Government but

directed it to pay compensation for the cost incurred in

setting up the project up to October 7, 1983, being the date

when show cause notice was issued.

893

The petitioners appealed to this Court by special leave

against upholding of the impugned order while the State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5

preferred the appeal' 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 Gover-

ment. It also held the appellants entitled to compensation

in lieu of costs incurred on the project and interest on the

compensation amount for the period subsequent to October, 7,

1983.

Pronouncing the reasons, the Court,

HELD: The High Court has examined the scope of ss.44 and

257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 in detail and

after considering all the facts and circumstances came to

the conclusion that the Government had the power to revise

even suo moto orders passed by the Collector and found that

the grounds on the basis of which the Government acted

existed and, therefore, the action on the part of the Gov-

ernment was bona fide and in public interest, although it

did not act diligently, but still in public interest the

High Court maintained the order passed by the Government

with the direction to compensate the persons concerned. The

view taken by the High Court appears to he correct. There is

no reason to interfere with it. [879D-F]

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 256 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

Jethmalani, Tushad Cooper, G. Subramaniam, Ashok Sharma,

Ajai Singh Chandal, V.S. Desai, A.S. Bhasme, A.M. Khanwilkar

for the appearing parties.

K. Parasaran, Attorney General, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Indu

Malhotra for the Interveners.

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

894

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 incorporated 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 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 modern 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 admeasuring about 68,327 square metres.

This site was included in "U" Zone in the Bombay Metropoli-

tan Regional Plan for the period from 1970 to 1991 prepared

under the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5

Act, 1974, "U" Zone denoting that the land was future urban-

isable area.

The site is situated at a distance of 2 kilometres from

Bhiwandi Town having Muslim majority which has been a trou-

ble spot for communal riots for past some years, with the

surrounding villages of Savandhe, Gorsai, Shelar, Chavindra,

Pogoan and Bhorpada situate at a distance of 1/2 kin, 1 km,

1/2 Inn, 11/2 km, 2 km, and 2kms. respectively. These vil-

lages have a population of about 400, 1500, 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 washing by the inhabitants of the surround-

ing villages and where the Hindus from Bhiwandi and the

aforesaid surrounding villages immerse their Ganesh idols on

the Ganpati Immersion Day.

After selecting the site the petitioners obtained the

requisite 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 the peti-

tioner, the Panchayat would not have any objection what-

895

soever as it will increase the income of the Panchayat.

Petitioners (High Court). obtained the consent from the

Maharashtra Prevention of Water Pollution Board under Sec-

tion 28 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Water Pollution

Act, 1969 to discharge the effluents from the proposed plant

in the water pollution prevention area of Ulhas 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' the Director General of Technical Develop-

ment on 8th January 1981. On 11.8.80 Collector Thane was

approached for permission to use the land for non-agricul-

tural 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 terms and conditions.

It appears that thereafter some trouble started and the

villagers round about Bhiwandi town which included also the

villages mentioned above addressed a complaint to one Shri

Sadanand Varde, M.L.A. from Bombay, making the following

grievances: (i) that the construction of the abattoir has

been started without the permission of 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 which is the means of livelihood 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 villagers therefore prayed that under no circum-

stances, the abattoir should be permitted. Shri Varde 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5

the basis of this letter it appears that the Government on

17.2.83 called for a report in the matter from the Collector

Thane who in turn called a report from the Tehsildar Thane

and Tehsildar Thane in his turn issued a notice to all the

parties including the promoters of this project and on

7.3.83 'recorded the statements of respective parties in-

cluding Shri Rizwan Bubere, the holder of a General Power of

Attorney and the Tehsildar sent his report on the same day

to the Collector. In the

896

meantime on 5.4.83 a detailed representation was received

against the venture (abattoir) by the Revenue Minister of

the State from the Sarpanch 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-

struction work for a period of 15 days pending investigation

and on 30th April, 1983 the Government directed the Commis-

sioner, 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 the Govern-

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 order pending admission

of the Writ Petition. Government filed their affidavit on

13.6.83 and stated that the Government was reconsidering 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.

On 16.8.1983 one Dr. Vyas filed his Writ Petition

before the High Court being No. 2717 of 1983 challenging the

order dated 5.4. 1982 of Additional Collector, Thane grant-

ing 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-interim stay was granted by the

High Court. It appears that on a statement made by the

GoVernment counsel that Government would take a final deci-

sion 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 risk of the persons concerned with-

out prejudice to the writ petition.

On 7th 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 heard

the revision on the same day and by his order dated

25.11.1983

897

set aside the order of Additional Collector and cancelled

the permission 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5

to a considerable extent. Against the decision of the Minis-

ter cancelling the permission granted by Additional Collec-

tor 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 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

considering 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 the Government acted

existed and therefore the action on the part of the Govern-

ment was bonafide and in public interest although the

learned Judges felt that the Government did not act dili-

gently but still in the public interest the High Court

maintained the order passed by the Government with the

directions to compensate the persons concerned. 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 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.

898