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