Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Order Reopening 33-Year-Old Land Re-Grant Dispute Involving Reliance SEZ

The Gujarat High Court on 14 October set aside an order directing fresh consideration of a land re-grant claim filed 33 years after the original grant was cancelled, after the State Government had allotted the land to Reliance Industries Limited for developing a Special Economic Zone (SEZ).

Justice Devan M. Desai allowed a petition filed by Reliance challenging the Secretary's order, which had overturned the Collector's rejection of a re-grant request made by Deva Sajan Rabari's legal heirs. He held:

“The order of cancellation of grant attained finality in absence of any challenge made by the predecessor-in- title of respondent No. 3 during his lifetime. Respondent No. 3, having no right to question the cancellation of grant, more particularly, in absence of any challenge made by the predecessor-in-title, the learned Collector has rightly rejected the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 on the ground of delay.”

The dispute concerned around 9 acres of land in Navagam village, Jamnagar, allotted for cultivation to the predecessor-in-interest of Deva Sajan Rabari in 1962. The grant was cancelled in 1972 after the allottee failed to take possession of and cultivate the land within the stipulated two-year period.

In 2005, Rabari's legal heirs sought re-grant under a Government Resolution dated 16 March 1982. The Collector rejected the request on 19 May 2006, citing the delay.

In October 2008, the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), set aside the Collector's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Secretary also rejected Reliance's request to be impleaded in the revision proceedings.

Reliance challenged the Secretary's order, contending that the State Government had allotted the land to it in April 2008 for developing a Special Economic Zone and had handed over possession to the company.

Rabari's legal heirs argued that the original cancellation order had been passed without giving their predecessor an opportunity to be heard. They claimed that the land had been cultivated and contended that Reliance's allotment was subject to existing rights and pending litigation.

The Court noted that the original allottee had neither challenged the cancellation order nor sought re-grant during his lifetime. His legal heirs approached the Collector only after 33 years without providing a convincing explanation for the delay.

Rejecting their argument that the cancellation order had not been communicated to their predecessor, it found it implausible that he had remained unaware of the cancellation for three decades.

Further, the Bench noted that no evidence had been produced before the Collector or the High Court to establish that the original allottee had taken possession of the land and commenced cultivation within two years of the grant. It held:

“The learned SSRD, in my opinion, has miserably failed to appreciate the long delay of 33 years in making a request for re-grant by respondent No. 3 and has merely relied upon a bare statement that the land is in possession of respondent No. 3 and is under cultivation.”

Justice Desai also observed that Reliance had paid consideration for the land and commenced commercial activities. He held that re-granting the land after such a prolonged period would lead to administrative complications and chaos.

He also noted that a Government Resolution dated 3 January 1984 stipulated that re-grant requests should generally not be accepted where land had remained under Government ownership for a long period, appreciated in value and acquired non-agricultural utility. It held that the Secretary had erred in ignoring the Resolution.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed Reliance's petition, quashed the Secretary's order and upheld the Collector's rejection of the re-grant request.

For Petitioner: Gandhi Law Associates

For Respondents: Advocates Rajiv Shah, AGP, Mahima H Brahmbhatt and Sachi H Barot