The Gujarat High Court recently ruled in favour of Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) in a land dispute concerning its Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in Jamnagar [Reliance Industries Limited v. State of Gujarat & Ors.].
In a judgment delivered on October 14, Justice Devan M Desai rejected a claim for restoration of the land made 33 years after its original allotment was cancelled, holding that such an unexplained delay could not be overlooked.
The Court set aside an October 2008 order of the State's Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), which had directed reconsideration of the restoration claim.
The dispute concerned approximately nine acres of land in Jamnagar's Navagam village, which was originally allotted to Deva Sajan Rabari in June 1962 for agricultural cultivation.
The allotment was cancelled in December 1972 after the authorities found that Rabari had neither taken possession nor cultivated the land within the stipulated two-year period.
In 2005, his legal heirs sought restoration of the land. The Jamnagar Collector rejected their request in May 2006 on the ground of delay.
Meanwhile, the Gujarat government allotted the disputed land to Reliance in April 2008 as part of a larger allocation for developing a petroleum and petrochemicals SEZ covering approximately 10,000 acres.
Reliance paid consideration, obtained possession and commenced development activities.
However, in October 2008, the State's special secretary of Revenue Department (Appeals), directed reconsideration of the restoration claim while rejecting Reliance's application to participate in the proceedings.
Reliance challenged this decision before the High Court.
The company argued that reopening the claim decades after cancellation would adversely affect rights subsequently created in its favour.
The legal heirs contended that the original cancellation had been ordered without hearing their predecessor and that Reliance's allotment was subject to pending litigation.
The High Court rejected these arguments, finding no evidence that the original allottee had taken possession or cultivated the land.
It also noted that the original allottee had never challenged the cancellation during his lifetime. The claim that he remained unaware of the cancellation for three decades was not a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
The Court further held that the special secretary had failed to properly consider the 33-year delay and had wrongly relied on an unsupported assertion that the land remained under cultivation.
The Court rejected the argument that pending litigation invalidated Reliance's allotment. It also observed that the legal heirs' civil suit had been dismissed for default in 2010.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the special secretary's October 2008 order and upheld the Collector's May 2006 decision rejecting the restoration claim.
Senior Advocate Mihir Joshi assisted by advocates Kunal Vyas, Devarsh Trivedi and Shivam Chokshi of Gandhi Law Associates, represented Reliance Industries.
Advocate Manan Brahmbhatt represented the legal heirs while Assistant Government Pleader Rajvi Shah appeared for the State.
[Read Judgment]