15 October 2004
Supreme Court
Download

PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs STATE OF GUJARAT .

Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN
Case number: C.A. No.-006798-006799 / 2004
Diary number: 9034 / 2004
Advocates: Vs HEMANTIKA WAHI


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6798-6799 of 2004

PETITIONER: Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

RESPONDENT: State of Gujarat & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/10/2004

BENCH: K.G. Balakrishnan & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8718-8719 of 2004)

WITH  Contempt Pet.(C)No.410/2004 in SLP(C) No.1562/2002             Contempt Pet.(C)No. 411/2004 in C.A.No.5556/2001

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Leave granted. The present appeals were filed against the final judgment and order dated  23/26.03.2004 and 02/05.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Misc. Civil  Application No. 2340 and 2341 of 2003 and in Special Civil Application No. 1032 of  1996 whereby the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellants  herein.

This case has a chequered history.  Parties to this action are fighting a legal  battle in the Court of law from 1971 onwards and still has not reached the finality of  the litigation for one reason or the other.  

The former Ruler of Bhavnagar was the owner of  large extent of lands in the  area in question.  The subject-matter of this litigation are the lands owned by the  former Ruler comprised in survey Nos. 469/1, 470/1, 471/2, 471/3 and 472 Village  Vadva aggregating about 952 acres being a Bid Land (a pasture land) was excluded  from the purview of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred  to as "the ALC Act").  This decision taken by the Collector on 26.03.1971 went  through the motion of appeal remand etc. and finally the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal  (for short "the GRT") held that the land in question being the bid land was excluded  from the purview of the ALC Act and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar for fixing  the ceiling of the other lands of the former Ruler.  The review application filed by the  State Government was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 15.04.1977.  No further  appeal was preferred by the State Government against the order of review. The former Ruler executed a registered sale deed in favour of the appellants  herein of the lands in the above survey nos. aggregating about 952 acres.  The  document was registered by the Collector.    In 1976, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter  referred to as "the ULC Act") came into force in the State of Gujarat and the land in  question being situated within the residential zone in the master plan under the Town  Planning Act fell within the definition of vacant land under the ULC Act.  On  01.04.1976, the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling (Amendment) Act, 1972 came into  force amending the definition of land so as to include the bid land as well within the  definition of land.  On a clarification sought by the competent authority and the Under  Secretary, Revenue Department and the Additional Collector (ULC Act) informed the  said authority that in view of the overriding provisions contained in Section 42 of the  ULC Act, the land in question would be governed by the ULC Act and requested the  said authority to proceed under the said Act.  On a further clarification sought by the  competent authority and the Additional Collector, the Revenue Department

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15  

conveyed to the said authority the opinion of legal department of the State  Government that the land in question would be governed by the ULC Act and not by  the ALC Act.  On receipt of a similar communication from the Revenue Department,  the Deputy Collector passed orders to drop the proceedings on the application filed  by the former Ruler under Section 8 of the ALC Act for a declaration that the sale  effected by him vide aforementioned sale deed dated 31.03.1971 had not been done  in anticipation of or with a view to defeat the provisions of the ALC Act.  Thus by  proceedings dated 09.11.1979 of the Deputy Collector, the ALC proceedings were  concluded.  Thereupon the right and title entry No. 1950 was entered in the revenue  records in the name of the appellants in respect of the land in question and the same  was certified on 15.11.1979.  The said entry was certified finally in view of the earlier  notice issued under Section 135(d) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879  (hereinafter referred to as "the BLR Code") Code and no objections were raised.  On  06.12.1979, the competent authority and the Additional Collector, ULC issued a  declaration in exercise of power under Section 21(1) of the ULC Act after verifying  the title of the appellant holding that the appellant was entitled to retain the vacant  land comprised in all the above survey nos. admeasuring 930 acres and 4 gunthas  for the purpose of construction of dwelling units under Section 21 of the ULC Act.   Pursuant to the sanction, the appellants have already developed the lands wherein  about 7000 dwelling units have already come up.  Presently, the appellant is seeking  no objection permission and sanction of lay out plan in respect of the land situated in  survey No. 469/1 which could not be developed earlier since there existed a  reservation on this land for Bhavnagar University.  The Bhavnagar Municipality filed a writ petition being special Civil Appeal No.  941 of 1980 for quashing and setting aside the order dated 06.12.1979 granting  exemption to the lands and sanctioning the scheme under Section 21 of the ULC Act  and a further direction to the authorities to adjudicate and decide the ALC Act  proceedings.  The High Court passed an interim order in favour of the Municipality  restraining the appellants from implementing the scheme.  Various affidavits were  filed by the competent authority and the Deputy Collector under the ULC Act and the  Deputy Collector to the Revenue Department stating that the title of the appellant to  the land in question was verified and the same was clear, authentic and valid and  the orders passed by the Deputy Collector under the ALC Act and the competent  authority under the ULC Act were valid and legal.  The High Court, thereafter,  vacated the ad-interim relief granted earlier to the Municipality and also permitted the  appellant herein (respondent No.8 therein) would be at liberty to construct at its own  risk and cost without claiming equities.  The said order is quoted below: "Rule.    To be heard in the 1st or 2nd week of September,  1980.   Having regard to the important questions arising in the  petition; the matter may be placed before the learned Chief  Justice for being assigned to  a Division Bench.   Mr. Chhatrapati  waives notice for R.1 to R.7 Mr. Mehta for R.8 and Mr. A.J.  Pandya for R.9 also waive notice of Rule.   Ad-interim relief  vacated on condition that the respondent No.8 will be at liberty to  construct at its own risk and costs and the facts of such  construction having been raised on the land shall not be a factor  in favour of  respondent No.8.  The above order is made at the  request of the learned advocate General who appears for  Respondent No.8.                                                                      A.M. Ahmadi.J.                                                                           24.7.1980" It is submitted that ever since the appellant had raised constructions on the  said land and the lands have been fully developed save and except the lands in  Survey No. 469/1 which was reserved for Bhavnagar University.  On 09.12.1981, the  State Government granted no objection permission in respect of the lands in Survey  Nos. 470/1 and 471/2 by three separate orders.  However, the Government refused  the no objection permission on the balance three applications for the remaining  lands excluding survey No. 469/1.  The grounds for refusal were (1) the scheme of  exemption was under review by the State Government under Section 34 of the ULC  Act and (2) the SCA No. 941 of 1980 filed by the Bhavnagar Municipality was  pending before the High Court.  On 16.02.1982, the High Court passed an order in SCA No. 5059 of 1981  against the order dated 09.12.1981 refusing the non-agricultural permission by the  Deputy Collector in regard to the three applications referred to above.  The order  reads thus:-

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15  

"Rule.  To be heard with Spl. C.A.941/80.   Petitioner may  construct on the land  at their own risk and cost but the fact of the  such construction will not be pleaded as a circumstance in their  favour at the time of final hearing of the matter.   Affidavit to be  completed by both the sides within 6 weeks from today.   To be  expedited."

The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by its judgment in Revision Application No.  1723 of 1983 dismissed the Revision Application of the State Government in respect  of the ALC Act proceedings.  It is to be noticed that this revision was filed by the  State Government against the order dated 09.11.1979 and 20.11.1979 whereby the  Deputy Collector dropped the proceedings filed by the former Ruler under Section 8  of the ALC Act for declaration that the sale deed dated 31.03.1971 was not effected  by him with a view to defeat the ALC Act.  The said order thus finally concluded the  proceedings under the ALC Act.  No further appeal was preferred by the State  Government.     As several notices had been issued by the revenue officials under the Land  Revenue Code and other laws in respect of the land in question and the writ  proceedings in the High Court and the stay order obtained, the appellant made a  representation dated 27.08.1990 to the State Government that they were being  harassed by the Officials by multifarious proceedings.  On 17.05.1991, the  Government of Gujarat took a decision and communicated the same to the  appellant.  The letter reads thus: "No.ULC-2190-MRA-2-69-V-I                                         Revenue Department                                          Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar                                         Dated:17.5.1991  To       The Managing Director,       Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd.,       C-2, Divya Apartments,        Mithakhali Garnala,       Navrangpura,       Ahmedabad

                Sub: Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)                           Act, 1976.                           Regarding lands of survey Nos.469/1,                                     470/1, 471/2, 471/3 and 472 of                            Village Vadva, Dist: Bhavnagar. Sir,         With reference to hour letter dated 28.9.1990 addressed  to the Hon’ble Chief Minister on the aforesaid subject, I am directed to  state that on your producing necessary evidence regarding  unconditional withdrawal of the petitions filed against the Government in  the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat with regard to this land, an appropriate  decision will be taken on your representation,  which please note.  

                                                       Yours faithfully,                                                         Sd/- N A Shah                                                 Under Secretary                                                     Revenue Department

Received on : 25.5.1991"  

This letter is self-explanatory.  Accordingly, all the proceedings initiated by the  appellant were withdrawn by them.  In view of all the writ petitions filed by the  appellant being withdrawn, the Deputy Collector on 27.09.1991 issued a notice in  Ceiling Case No. 1/83-84 and rule 108(6) of the BLR Code again seeking to revise  the right and title entry No 1950 on the grounds detailed herein below, principally  contending that the sale by the former Ruler in favour of the appellant of the lands in  question vide sale deed dated 31.03.1971 is invalid.  (a)     That title of survey No.472 did not vest with the petitioner; (b)     That the subject lands being bid lands could not transferred; (c)     That the transfer of the lands to the petitioner was in violation of the

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15  

Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance;

(d)     Notice under the BLR code was not issued; and (e)     On the above mentioned grounds the mutation entry was sought to be  cancelled.

The Deputy Collector issued another notice seeking to reopen the ALC  proceedings which had been closed on the grounds that the Bid Lands were not  covered by the ALC Act as it then stood, and that it was the ULC Act which would  govern the land in question and not the ALC Act.  

The Deputy Collector, Bhavnagar in Revision Case No. 1/83-84 after  considering the entire issues of the said notice held that ownership of the land in  question was of the appellant.  It was decided that the revenue mutation entry No.  1950 as recorded in village form no. 6 was legal and valid.  It was also decided to  withdraw the show cause notice dated 27.07.1991 and to drop all the proceedings  commenced under the said notice.

By a separate order rendered in Ceiling Appeal No. 4/82-83 under the ALC  Act the Deputy Collector confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar dated 16.09.1982 in  which it had been, inter alia, held that the ALC Act did not apply to the land in  question.  The Mamlatdar in the said order dated 16.09.1982 had followed the  aforementioned order of the GRT dated 03.01.1974, whereby the GRT had held that  the land in question was not covered by the ALC Act.  By the said order dated  16.09.1982, the Mamlatdar, inter alia, determined the ceiling of the other lands of the  former Ruler.  It was thus held that no proceedings under the ALC Act would lie in  respect of the land in question.   

SURVEY NO. 469/1: We shall now come to survey No. 469/1 which could not be developed  contemporaneously along with other survey nos. since there existed reservation on  this land for Bhavnagar University.    A Writ petition was filed by the appellant in the High Court being Special Civil  Application No. 10108 of 1994, inter alia, praying that the reservation of Survey No.  469/1 in favour of Bhavnagar University had lapsed and for a declaration that the  land is free for development by the appellant.  This writ petition was filed on  10.08.1994.  The Collector, Bhavnagar issued a suo motu notice on 25.01.1996  seeking to revise the order dated 10.07.1992 rendered in Revision Case No. 1/83-84  which sought to revise the right and title entry No. 1950 on the following grounds: (a)     That title to survey no. 472 did not vest with the petitioner; (b)     That the subject lands being bid lands could not be transferred; (c)     That the transfer of the lands to the petitioner was in violation of the  Saurashtra Gharkhed ordinance, and

(d)     Notice under the BLR code was not issued. It is pertinent to notice that these issues are already covered by the earlier  proceedings finally decided in favour of the appellant.  Against the above show  cause notice, the appellant filed Special Civil Application No. 1032 of 1996 before  the High Court wherein the High Court granted interim stay against the said show  cause notice.  The Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department of the State Government  filed affidavits in all connected matters stating that the title of the appellant to the  land in question is authentic and valid.  In the meanwhile, the ULC Act was repealed  and the said repealing Act was subsequently adopted by the State Legislature.  The  High Court, by judgment rendered in Special C.A. No. 1032 of 1996, quashed the  notice dated 25.01.1996 of the Collector, seeking to revise the order passed by the  Deputy Collector dated 10.07.1992.  The High Court, in the said judgment, has  observed that it was unfair, unjust and too late in the day for the Collector to raise  various issues such as illegal sale of bid land, breach of Saurashtra Gharkhed  Ordinance, ALC Act etc. which were closed and decided 3 = years earlier.  The  order of the Deputy Collector dated 10.07.1992 was upheld by the said judgment in  which all the issues were concluded.

By a separate judgment pronounced on the same day, the High Court  rejected all the contentions raised by the Municipal Corporation in Special Civil

5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15  

Application No. 941 of 1980 relating to sanction of ULC Act scheme and the ALC Act  proceedings.  By a common judgment, a declaration was given in Special Civil  Application No. 10108 of 1994 that the designation of the land bearing Survey No.  469/1 reserved for Bhavnagar University had lapsed.  The issue of the ULC Act and  the ALC Act was concluded by the said judgment rendered in S.C.A. No 941 of  1980. While granting leave, this Court directed status quo to be maintained in the  SLP filed by the Municipal Corporation against the judgment in SCA No. 941 of  1980.  This Court again modified the interim order dated 17.08.2001 directing that it  will be open to the appellant herein to construct dwelling units on the lands in  accordance with the approved or sanctioned scheme but such construction would be  at its own risk and shall not be a factor in its favour.  

This Court also passed an order in Contempt Petition No. 142 of 2002, inter  alia, directed the authorities to sanction the plan of Survey No. 469/1, make revenue  entries in the revenue records and collect the dues related to the said land.  Civil  Appeal No. 5556 of 2001 was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn after a detailed  hearing.  Thus the issue of the ULC Act and the ALC Act raised in the S.C.A. No.  941 of 1980 was finally concluded by the said judgment.  On 03.12.2002, this Court  dismissed the civil appeals filed against the order of the High Court in SCA No.  10108 of 1994 and batch relating to reservation in Survey No. 469/1 in favour of the  Bhavnagar University.   Other SLPs being SLP No. 1561-63 of 2000 filed against the  order dated 24.11.2000 in SCA No. 1032 of 1996 were heard and the SLPs were  dismissed by a detailed order.  Thus, according to the appellant, various issues  regarding the right and the title of the lands in question were finally concluded by the  said judgment.  Review Petition No.33 of 2003 was filed by the State Government before this  Court by raising the following grounds:- (a)     That title to survey no. 472 did not vest with the petitioner; (b)     That the subject lands being bid lands could not be transferred; (c)     That the transfer of the lands to the petitioner was in violation of  Sec.54 of Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance; (d)     Notice under the BLR code was not issued; and (e)     Violation of ALC Act.  According to the appellant, these very same issues are covered by the earlier  proceedings and finally decided in favour of the appellants in proceedings dated  27.09.1991, 10.07.1992, 25.01.1996, 24.11.2000, 05.12.2002, 06.03.1987,  10.07.1992 and 14.11.2002 reported in Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar  Mill (P) Ltd. and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 111.   The affidavit was filed by Shri Kanti Lal Patel, the Collector of Bhavnagar  District (since retired), who was the second petitioner in the review petition as well as  in the SLP.  On 21.01.2003, the Bhavnagar Municipality issued an order for sanctioning  the lay out plan in respect of R.S. No. 469/1.  In the said order, four conditions were  stated including obtaining of non-agricultural permission from the Collector.  On 06.02.2003, this Court dismissed the Review Petition No. 33 of 2003 in  the following words: "Delay condoned.

We have carefully gone through the review petition and the connected  papers.  We do not find any merit in the review petition. The review petition,  accordingly, dismissed."

After the dismissal of the review petition again notice of inquiry was issued by  the Deputy Collector under Section 37(2) of the B.L.R. Code for deciding the title of  R.S. No. 472 which issue was covered by earlier proceedings finally decided in  favour of the appellant.  In proceedings dated 27.09.1991, 10.07.1992, 25.01.1996,  24.11.2000, 05.12.2002 and 06.02.2003 the Collector issued 9 show cause notices  on 12.05.2003, 13.05.2003, 17.05.2003, 19.05.2003 and 22.05.2003 in regard to the  dispute covered by earlier proceedings between the parties and finally decided in  favour of the appellant.  In the show cause notices, the Collector stated as follows:- "For taking a decision in that regard, due to lack of full facts before the  Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it  does not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of the Hon’ble High  Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 1032 of 1996 dated

6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15  

24.11.2000.  On the basis of this judgment, the illegal acts committed by the  "Mill" cannot be termed to be legal.  In these circumstances, show cause  notice for breach of    Section 66 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879  is hereby issued/given."

The appellant moved recusal application before the Principal Secretary,  Revenue Department with a request to direct the Collector to recuse himself from the  hearing of the aforementioned show cause notices issued by him.  Another reminder  was issued on 21.07.2003.  The Deputy Secretary wrote a letter to the appellant  stating that no administrative directions could be issued to the Revenue Department,  to the Collector to state the aforementioned proceedings as he was discharging  quasi-judicial functions.  On 29/30.08.2003, the Collector Shri Kantilal Patel (a day prior to retirement)  has passed 6 orders against the appellant and directed the City Mamlatdar to take  possession of the Lands.  The said orders were based on the self same grounds  concluded in favour of the appellant.  The said grounds are:-     (a)     Sec 54 of Saurashtra Gharkhed. (b)      Bid Land. (c)     N.A. Permission, Breach the conditions of ULC Act scheme. (d)      N.A. conditions breached. (e)      N.A. conditions breached. (f)      N.A. conditions breached. According to the appellant, the Collector had passed orders despite recusal  application by the appellant on the ground that he was the deponent in review  petition No. 33 of 2003 and in another affidavit in C.A. No. 5556 of 2001 before this  Court wherein the same allegations made in the show cause notice were obtaining  against the appellant. On 09.09.2003, the appellant submitted its revised plans of Survey No. 469/1  and submitted to the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation for sanctioning the lay out  and building plans in view of the Development Control Rules was revised by the  State Government vide notification dated 01.09.2003.  Those plans are still pending  for sanction.  On 11.09.2003, the Deputy Collector passed an order against the  appellant in respect of the land in Survey No. 472 was of the State Government.   According to the appellant, this issue is covered by earlier proceedings finally  decided in favour of the appellant and referred to in paragraph supra.  On  15.09.2003, the Mamlatdar A.L.T passed an order under the ALC Act against the  appellant and held that the lands in question were excess land under the ALC Act  and, therefore, all lands in question were vest in the State Government.  According  to the appellant, the ALC Act proceedings were concluded in the earlier proceedings  datd 06.03.1987 and 10.07.1992.  On 16.09.2003, the Collector issued a notice for  modification of Revenue Entry No. 1950 in respect of survey Nos. 469/1, 470/1,  471/2, 471/3 and 472 in the name of the State Government.  Though the said right  and title entry was confirmed by the Deputy Collector vide order dated 10.07.1992  and the same were upheld by this Court.  Against the respective orders of the  Collector, the Deputy Collector and the Mamlatdar ALT, the appellant filed appeals  before the Revenue Secretary and the Collector of Bhavnagar District respectively.   The appeals are pending. On 27.11.2003, the appellant moved the High Court of Gujarat in Misc. Civil  Application No. 2340 of 2003 for clarification and directions and second Misc. Civil  Application No. 2341 of 2003 for initiating contempt proceedings against the  Collector Kantilal Patel, the Deputy Collector and the Mamlatdar ALT.  The right and  title Entry No. 1950 was finally modified by the Collector office on the name of State  Government in the Revenue Records in respect of all Survey Nos. without  considering the orders passed by the High Court and of this Court as well as  pending dispute before the High Court for the same and without hearing the  objections of the appellant.  On 23.03.2004, the High Court held that its order dated  24.11.2000 passed in SCA No. 941 of 1980 had merged with the order of  14.11.2002 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5556 of 2001 filed by the  Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation which was dismissed as withdrawn.

However, after holding so that its order had merged with the aforementioned  order of this Court, the High Court instead of staying its hands went into the  maintainability of the contempt petition and passed orders thereon.

7

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15  

An interim order was passed by this Court on 05.05.2004 directing the  authorities to sanction the plan of Survey No. 469/1 and make entries in the revenue  records.  According to the appellant, this order was not complied with the officers of  the State Government.            

We heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel ably assisted by Mr.  P.H. Parekh for the appellants and Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel ably  assited by Ms. Hemantika Wahi for the contesting respondents.  We also heard  other learned counsel for the respective parties.  Both the learned counsel invited  our attention to the pleadings filed in several volumes, annexures, orders passed by  the authorities and the judgments rendered by the Tribunal, High Court and of this  Court and made elaborate and lengthy submissions.  Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior  counsel, submitted that the High Court had no jurisdiction to make an observation as  regards the merits of the two applications preferred by the appellants despite it  having expressly come to the conclusion that since the order of the High Court had  merged with the order of this Court.  Such application would lie only before this  Court.  He would further submit that the High Court was in gross error in dismissing  the contempt petition on merits despite having held that the order in respect of which  the contempt had been committed had merged with the orders passed by this Court.   Having said so, it was wholly beyond the domain of the High Court to comment upon  the merits of the contempt petition.  The said observation thus made in relation to the  contempt petition were made by a Court which on its own analogy was bereft of  jurisdiction to proceed as it is well considered that petition for contempt only lies  before the Court whose order is violated.   Therefore, he contended that the  observations made by the High Court as regards the merits of the two applications  were without jurisdiction.  In the present case, the High Court observed in para 22 as  follows:- "Appropriate remedy of the Petitioners would be to file an application if at all  it is maintainable before the Supreme Court."  

Having made the aforesaid observation, it is submitted that the High Court  encroached upon the domain of this Court by making observation on the question as  to whether the clarification application was maintainable or not.  Mr. Rohatgi submitted that the order of the High Court suffers from infirmities  and is thus liable to be set aside on this short ground alone.  Mr. Rohtagi further submitted that having purchased the land by a  registered  sale deed, the appellants became the owner of the entire extent and that the land  not being fit for cultivation was excluded  from the purview of the ALC Act.     The  authorities have also clarified that the land in question would be governed by the  ULC Act and not by the ALC Act.   Therefore, he contended that the appellant was  entitled to retain the entire vacant land comprising the above survey numbers  for the  purpose of construction of  dwelling units under Section  21 of the ULC Act.  So far  as Survey No. 469/1 is concerned, the said land could not be developed  contemporaneously since there existed a reservation on this land for Bhavnagar  Municipality and the Special Civil Application filed by the Bhavnagar University  questioning the order dated 6.12.1999 granting exemption to the lands and  sanctioning of the Scheme under Section 21 of the ALC Act was also decided in  favour of the appellant.  The High Court granted liberty to the appellant to construct  at its own risk and cost without claiming equities.  It was also a matter of record that  the land in question have already been fully developed save and  except  the land in  Survey No. 469/1.  He would further submit that in view of the cabinet decision of the  Government of Gujarat, the appellant was informed to withdraw the pending cases  filed by them so that appropriate decision would be taken in respect of the pending  disputes by the State Government.  It is also a matter of record that the proceedings  initiated by the appellant were withdrawn by them.  Thereupon again the matter was   reopened by the authorities,  principally contending that the sale in favour of the  appellant of the lands in question is invalid.  The matter was agitated by the  appellant before the authorities concerned and the authorities have held that the  ALC Act did not apply to the lands in question. He further submitted that the writ petition filed by the appellant in the High  Court in SCA No. 10108 of 1994 with regard to the land in Survey No. 469/1 which  was reserved for Bhavnagar University since 1965 under the Town Planning  Act  had lapsed and for further declaration that the land is free for development.    The  Collector of Bhavnagar issued a suo motu notice even though the issues are  covered by the earlier proceedings and finally decided by the authorities in favour of

8

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15  

the appellant.  The suo motu notice was challenged by the appellant in the High  Court.  The High Court quashed the show cause notice dated 25.1.1996 of the  Collector seeking to revise the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated  10.7.1992.  The High Court also observed that it was unfair, unjust and too late in  the  day for the Collector to raise various issues such as illegal sale of bid land,  breach of Saurshtra Gharkhed Ordinance, ALC Act etc. which were closed and  decided  three and a half years earlier.  It was also submitted that the High Court by  a separate judgment rejected all the contentions raised by the Municipal Corporation  in Special Civil Application No. 941 of 1980 relating to sanction of ULC Act Scheme  and the ALC Act proceedings.    The Court also declared that the designation of the  land bearing Survey No. 469/1 reserved for Bhavnagar University had lapsed.  Thus  Mr. Rohtagi submitted that the issue of ULC Act and ALC Act was concluded by the  above judgment.    After referring to the judgment of this Court, Mr. Rohtagi  submitted that this Court has already granted permission to the appellant to  construct dwelling units on the land in accordance with the approved or sanctioned  Scheme but such construction would be at its own risk and shall not be a factor in its  favour.  This Court also in the contempt proceedings directed the authorities to  sanction the plan of Survey No. 469/1 and make revenue entries in the revenue  record and collect the dues related to the said land.  This Court dismissed the civil  appeal preferred by the Municipal Corporation as withdrawn after a detailed hearing.    Our attention was further invited to the judgment of this Court in the case of  Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & Ors. (supra)   by which  this Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Bhavnagar University.  Therein the  learned counsel appearing for the University contended having regard to the scope  and purport of the said Act, the High Court must be held to have erred insofar as it  failed to take into consideration that the objects of an integrated, incorporated and  interdependent development plan, cannot be fully achieved within a period of ten  years and in that view of the matter when steps are taken for revision of the final  development plan, the period specified in sub-section(2) of Section 20 of the Gujarat  Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (27 of 1976) would get  automatically extended.     Learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein who  was the respondent therein contended that the right of an owner of the land cannot  be kept under suspension for a long time and the period of ten years specified by the  legislature must be held to be a reasonable one, and thus by no stretch of  imagination only by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, the  period specified therein can be extended.  After considering the rival submissions,  this Court dismissed the civil appeals filed by the University. Thus the proceedings under the above Act has also reached its finality by the  judgment of this Court in Bhavnnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd.   (supra).  The various issues  regarding the right and title of the land in question were  finally concluded by the judgment.  A further review petition filed by the State  Government was also dismissed by this Court on 6.2.2003.   After the conclusion of  all the above proceedings, nine show cause notices were issued by the Collector  raising the very same issues but in a different tone and form.   Mr. Rohtagi submitted  that all the disputes between the appellant and the respondents were finally  completed between the parties in view of the cabinet decision of the Government of  Gujarat and the subsequent withdrawal of the writ petitions filed by the appellant  herein.  Therefore, he would submit that the authorities have no right or jurisdiction  to issue show cause notices in regard to the earlier proceedings finally decided in  favour of the appellant to which the respondents were also parties.  Concluding his  arguments, Mr. Rohtagi submitted that the authorities have failed to act on the  directions issued by this Court.  The appellant moved  the High Court for clarification  and also initiated contempt proceedings.  Mr. Rohtagi also submitted that the  authorities must be directed to issue the planning permit for construction of the  houses with reference to Survey No. 469/1 immediately and on payment of  necessary charges etc.   Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents,  submitted that the principal issue which directly and substantially arose and which  was decided by the High Court in SCA No. 1032 of 1996 was in respect of the  validity of mutation entry No. 1950  and that what was finally and conclusively  decided by the High Court in its aforesaid judgment was a controversy relating to the  validity of mutation entry arising directly and substantially in the writ petition and the  observations relating to various other issues/contraventions under other independent  legislations were, at the best, collateral and incidental observations made only with a  view to hold that after a long lapse of time, the Collector could not have sought to

9

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15  

disturb the mutation entry on the strength of the contravention of the provisions of  other enactments referred to above.  Similarly, the principal issue which arose for the  consideration of the High Court in SCA No. 941 of 1980 at the behest of the  Bhavnagar Muncipality was the legality and validity of the order dated 6.12.1979  passed by the authority concerned sanctioning the weaker section scheme under  Section 21 of the ULC Act in favour of the appellant-Company.  Ultimately, the High  Court while dismissing the writ petition  held that   the alleged excess land which was  allowed to be retained by the appellant-Company for implementing the Scheme for  weaker sections under Section  21 of the ULC Act would remain unaffected by the  provisions of Section 3 of the ULC  Repeal Act and that the possession thereof shall  be allowed to be continued with the land owners.  Mr. Sundaram further contended  that the land admeasuring 76 acres 39 guntas of Survey No. 469/1 is concerned, the  same was never part of the aforesaid scheme and that, therefore, the same was  never governed by the ULC Act prior to its repeal.  Referring to show cause notices,  it was submitted that at no point of time, the proceedings for the violation of the  provisions of the Vid Formula for illegal sale of the land initiated against the  appellant-Company and were ever concluded till the rendition of order dated  29/30.8.2003.  Likewise, at no point of time, the proceedings for violation of the  provisions of the  Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Agricultural Ordinance, 1949 had  ever been concluded.   Mr. Sundaram, however, conceded that no further action can be taken for  disturbing the finality of the mutation entry in view of the judgment of the High Court  dated 24.11.2000 in SCA No. 1032 of 1996, which was also a stand taken by the  respondent, in their affidavit in reply on behalf of the State.   The said statement is  placed on record. In the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) 8718 of 2004, in regard  to the grant of non-agricultural permission or cancellation thereof, it was submitted   that the said issue was never the subject matter of either SCA No. 941/1980 or SCA  No. 1032/1986 and that, therefore, there was never a question of the said issue  reaching any finality.    Mr Sundaram further submitted that it was owing to the  aforesaid reasons that the fresh proceedings came to be pursued against the  appellant-Company and that the proceedings were initiated in view of the breaches  committed   by the appellant-Company under various enactments.  According to Mr.  Sundaram, the appellant-Company appeared in response to the aforesaid show  cause notices in different sets of proceedings and that in all the aforesaid  proceedings, the appellant-Company was duly represented by its advocate and  ultimately the said orders have been rendered after affording ample opportunities of  being heard and after considering the applicable legal provisions. On 30.8.2003, an order was passed imposing penalty, conversion tax, non- agricultural assessment, local fund and education cess totalling to the tune of Rs.  5,80,61,510/- in respect of 31,48,208 sq. mts. (excluding land of Survey No.472),  inter alia, on the ground that the aforesaid transfer of open plots in favour of third  parties were in violation of the provisions of Registration Act, Bombay Stamps Act,  Town Planning Act, Municipal Regulation, Building Regulation etc. and for using land  of different survey numbers for non-agricultural purpose without permission.  This  order was with reference to the show cause notice dated 12.5.2003.   Another order was passed on dated 30.8.2003 deciding   show cause notice  dated 13.5.2003 issued under Section 67 of BLR Code etc. for breach of conditions  of non-agricultural permission granted vide order dated 23.6.1980 in respect of 720  sq. mts. of land of Survey No. 4701/1 and construction is not as per Condition No. 4  or order of non-agricultural permission since the construction has been carried out  on the land in question in violation of the lay out plans for the said land as approved  by the specified authority. A separate order was passed on dated 30.8.2003 deciding  show cause  notice dated  13.5.2003 issued under Section 67 of BLR Code etc. for breach of  conditions of non-agricultural permission granted vide order dated 28.10.1980 in  respect of 17927.50 sq. mts. of land of Survey Nos. 470/1 and 471/2.   Another order was passed on 30.8.2003 deciding show cause notice dated  13.5.2003 issued under Section 67 of BLR Code etc. for breach of conditions of non- agricultural permission granted vide order dated 27.3.1981 in respect of 78,713 sq.  mts. of land of Survey No. 470/1 (Part), 471/2 (Part) and 471(Part).   For the show cause notice dated 17.5.2003, an order was passed on  29/30.8.2003, for illegal sale of Bid land of Survey Nos. 469/1, 470/1, 471/3 and  471/2 admeasuring 880 A.04 Gs. in violation of Bid Formula and that of the  provisions of the BLR Code have been contravened and that, therefore, the

10

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15  

appellant-Company being in authorised occupation and enjoyment of the land was  ordered to be summarily evicted.    Another order on the same date was issued under Section 75 of the  Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949  for transfer of land of Survey Nos. 469/1, 470/1, 471/3, 471/2 and 472 to non- agricultural in breach of Section 54 and that the appellant-Company has failed to  produce any evidence as to whether permission for purchasing the land was  obtained or that the appellant-Company is a farmer/agriculturist.     Another order was passed for forfeiture of land bearing Survey Nos. 469/1,  470/1, 471/2, 471/3 and 471/4 admeasuring 832 acres 4 guntas  on the ground that  on repeal of ULC Act  all the lands are governed by the provisions of the Gujarat  Agricultural Lands Act, 1960 and that the appellant-Company  had admittedly  acquired surplus land admeasuring 880 acres and 4 guntas in excess of the  prescribed ceiling limit of Vadva village of Bhavnagar District, which acquisition is  required to be declared illegal and the excess land vests in the State Government.   Another order was issued in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 472  admeasuring 101 acres 14 guntas, inter alia, on the ground that the land bearing  Survey No. 472 since 1949-1955 was never included in Village Form No.6 and was  entered as Government land.   The appellant-Company has, therefore, taken up various proceedings against  the orders passed by various authorities and during the pendency of the aforesaid  appeals, the appellant-Company filed two miscellaneous civil applications being  2340 of 2003 and 2341 of 2003 before the High Court seeking clarification and also  initiating contempt proceedings and against the order of rejection, the appellant have  filed the above appeals herein before this Court. Mr. Sundaram, after narrating all the events, submitted that a plain reading of  the judgment, impugned in these special leave petitions, passed by the High Court  makes it abundantly clear that the High Court has not gone into the merits of the  case of the appellant and both the miscellaneous applications were rejected mainly  on the following grounds: i)      That the application for clarification and directions is not  maintainable in law since the same under the guise of seeking  clarification, challenge legality and validity of various orders  passed by the different authorities under different statutes  which are the subject matter of challenge by the appellant  before various revisional and appellate authorities;   ii)     That appellants’ application for clarification and directions filed  before the High Court did not mention as to under which  provisions of law the same was filed despite such requirement  as per Rule 50 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993; iii)    That the appellants’ application for clarification and directions  was admittedly not for rectification of an order or removal of  ambiguity and that the appellants have not invoked the inherent  power of the High Court for rectification of error or for removal  of ambiguity and if inherent powers are not invoked, then there  must be some provisions under which the application was filed. iv)     That the judgment of the High Court in SCA No.941 of 1980  has merged into the order of  this Court  passed in Civil  Application No. 5556/2001 whereas judgment of the High Court  rendered in SCA No. 1032/1996 though not merged into the  order of this Court, various averments and grounds mentioned  in the application for seeking clarification and directions based  on two decided petitions are almost common, interconnected  and interlinked and that, therefore, the orders passed by this  Court dismissing the special leave petition as well as the review  petition of the State preferred against the judgment of the High  Court in SCA No. 1032 of 1996 may attract Art. 141 of the  Constitution. v)      That the application for contempt is not entertainable since the  respondents herein have not committed contempt of Court and  the appellants are not entitled to relief of quashment of the  orders passed by various authorities in the year 2003 in  contempt proceedings more particularly when appellants  themselves have approached the High Court for clarification of  its judgments rendered in SCA Nos. 941/1980 and 1032/1996.

11

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15  

Mr. Sundaram reiterated that the High Court did not go into the various other  contentions raised on behalf of the appellants relating to the merits of the case and  that, therefore, it is not correct on the part of the appellants to contend that the High  Court has made observations as regards the merits of the applications despite it  having expressly come to the conclusion that since the order of the High Court had  merged with the order of this Court and that, therefore, any such application would  lie only before this Court.     Concluding his arguments, Mr. Sundaram submitted that fresh nine orders  passed by   various authorities under various legislations in the year 2003 furnished  fresh causes of action to the appellants and the same cannot be set aside by  entertaining an application which is styled as an application for clarification and  directions. According to Mr. Sundaram, the appellants have committed breaches of  various laws with impunity and now under the guise of bar of res judicata and under  the threat of contempt, want the authorities to desist from taking any action against  them.  He also denied that the show notice notices and the orders passed thereon  are not hit by the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata and/or  principles analogues to res judicata and constructive res judicata, as alleged or  otherwise. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival claims to the detailed  and elaborate submissions made by the counsel appearing on either side. This Court, on 5.5.2004, heard these special leave petitions and by an interim  order directed the District Inspector, Bhavnagar to go at the spot and identify and  earmark 76 acres and 39 guntas of land in Survey No. 469/1 in the presence of  representative of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, Government and the petitioner- Mill, if not already done and further make entries to that effect in the revenue record  within four weeks from the date of the said order.  This Court further directed the  Corporation to sanction the lay out plan in another two weeks after the land is  identified and dues are paid.  It is stated that in spite of several letters and reminders  sent by the appellants, the respondents have deliberately failed to comply with the  aforesaid interim order under the guise of issuing fresh show cause notices.  In our  opinion, most of the issues which sought to be raised in the counter affidavit of the  respondents are nothing but raising the same issues all over again which had been  raised in the earlier proceedings and were rejected by this Court and would amount  to replaying of a recorded cassette.    It cannot be disputed that the issues of the  alleged violation of VIDI Formula, Bid Land, ALC Act, Saurashtra Gharkhed  Ordinance and the alleged lack of title to Survey No. 472 are the issues which had  been raised before the High Court in SCA No. 1032 of 1996 and thereafter in this  Court in Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 1562 of 2002 and again in Review Petition  No. 33 of 2003 but did not find favour either with this Court or the High Court.  The  High Court, after elaborate discussion by its judgment dated 24.11.2000 delivered in  Special Civil application No. 1032 of 1996 held, inter alia, as under: "In the instant case, even if the entire period from the  first mutation entry made in the year 1976 up to the conclusion  of all litigations pending in the High Court is excluded, we find  that the impugned show cause notice issued on 25.1.1996 to  revise the order of the Deputy Collector passed on 10.7.1992  being after a period of almost 3 years and 6 months.  It is much  beyond a reasonable period of one year as has been held by  the Division Bench in the case of Bhagwanji Patel (supra).  As  has been narrated above in statements of facts, not only that  the Revenue Entry was confirmed but the State Government  had sanctioned construction scheme prepared by the petitioner  company for construction of dwelling units for weaker sections  of the society.  The petitioner on that basis spent crores of  rupees for development of the land.  It is reported that on part  of the land some dwelling units have been constructed.  It is too  late now for the Collector, Bhavnagar to raise an issue that part  of the land was Bid Land and the erstwhile ruler of Bhavnagar  could not have sold it to the petitioner company and it is not  covered in the definition of ’agriculturist’ under the Saurashtra  Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands  Ordinance Act, 1949.  The petitioner’s grievance is legitimate  that attempt to upset the construction scheme by treating the

12

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15  

urban land to be an agricultural land after such a long period, is  an action highly belated and unjust."

In the special leave petition filed against the aforesaid judgment of the High  Court, the very same grounds raised in the counter affidavit under reply had been  raised as well as argued before this Court and the same were rejected.  The  respondents once again raised those issues in  Review Petition  No. 33 of 2003 filed  in this Court.  The Review Petition was dismissed  by this Court on 6.2.2003.   Refusing to concede defeat, the then Collector filed affidavits in this Court and had  remained present in this Court issued a series of show cause notices, wherein the  orders of this Court was described as under:

"For taking a decision in that regard due to lack of full facts  before this Court, it was held by this Court that it does not see any  reason to interfere with the judgment of this Court rendered in Special  Civil Application No. 1032 of 1996 dated 24.11. 2000.  On the basis of  this judgment, the illegal acts committed by the "Mill" cannot be termed  as legal.  In these circumstances, show cause notice for breach of  Section 66 of the Mumbai Land Revenue Code, 1879 is hereby  issued/given."                                (Emphasis supplied)

Despite, appellant No.1 bringing to the notice of the former Collector that the  said action on his part of issuing the show cause notices was in violation of this  Court judgment and order dated 5.12.2002 and 6.2.2003,  he brushed aside the  same  and proceeded to issue various ex parte orders in utter contempt of this Court.   A written representation requesting him to recuse himself from hearing the show  cause notices on the ground that he had been a party to the earlier proceedings as  well as filed affidavits in those proceedings, the then Collector refused to recuse  himself from hearing the show cause notices and passed various orders dated  29/30.8.2003 on the aforesaid show cause notices.   It is well settled that the judgments of this Court are binding on all the  authorities under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and it is not open to any  authority to ignore a binding judgment of this Court on the ground that the full facts  had not been placed before this court and/or the judgment of this Court in the earlier  proceedings had only collaterally or incidentally decided the issues raised in the  show cause notices.  Such an attempt to belittle the judgments and the orders of this  Court, to say the least, is plainly perverse and amounts to gross contempt of this  Court.   We are pained to say that the then Deputy Collector has scant respect for  the orders passed by the Apex Court. We have perused the various counter affidavits and the various notices  issued on different occasions.  They are all mere repetition of the stand taken by  them in the earlier proceedings before this Court which has been elaborately dealt  with in the earlier proceedings.  Insofar as Survey No. 469/1  is concerned, several  notices were issued by the appellants herein to the Commissioner, Bhavnagar  Municipal Corporation and the Collector, Bhavnagar inviting their attention to the  order dated 5.5.2004 passed in the present appeals.  Several correspondence took  place between appellant No.1 and the authorities from 10.5.2004 to 29.6.2004.  The  authorities have not permitted the appellants to carry out the construction on the said  land on Survey No. 469/1.  Identification of the land has not also been done as  directed by this Court.  In the meanwhile, the appellant paid development charges to   Bhavnagar Area  Development Authority  for construction of various blocks of Survey  No. 469/1 amounting to Rs.29,618/- and development chares for the whole land  amounting  to Rs. 6 lakhs has already  been paid by appellant No.1 on 7.5.2002.   The appellants have also paid scrutiny charges for the lay out plan for the whole land  bearing Survey No. 469/1 amounting to Rs.3,11,508/- and 1,55,754/- has already  been paid on 13.5.2002 and 12.9.2003 by appellant No.1.   It was also brought to our notice that with respect to the land of Survey  No.469/1, the authorities have already entered the name of the appellant in the  revenue records on 13.10.2002.  Thereafter, the appellant’s name was deleted from  the said entry pursuant to the order of the Collector dated 29/30.8.2003 and the  order of the City Mamlatdar dated 15.9.2003.  Thereafter when the entry was made  pursuant to the order of this Court dated 5.5.2004, it was incumbent on the City  Mamlatdar to not only make the entry of the area of Survey No. 469/1 in the revenue

13

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15  

records but also to make that entry in the name of the applicant.  This has not been  done so far.  Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, therefore, submitted that  the City Mamlatdar is the guilty of not complying with the order of this Court dated  5.5.2004.  On 22.6.2004, the Collector of Bhavnagar District wrote a letter to the  Deputy Commissioner, Bhavnagar, Municipal Corporation that as per the four  separate orders of the office of the Collector dated 30.8.2003, a total amount of  Rs.5,85,93,410/- remains to be recovered from the appellant-Company.  In reply to  the said letter dated 22.6.2004, the appellant wrote to the Collector and the  Commissioner stating that the alleged dues of five 5 crores and odd have no  relevance to the orders passed by this Court and the demand made is illegal and  contrary to the order passed by this Court and that the four orders on which the  reliance was placed were all passed contrary to the order dated 5.5.2004 passed by  this Court. Further it was submitted that in respect of the land bearing Revenue Survey  No. 469/1, all dues have been paid for sanctioning the plan and further the appellant- Company has always been ready to pay the non-agricultural tax for the revenue  Survey No. 469/1 but the Collector and the Commissioner have refused to grant any  permission even after various reminders sent to them by the appellant-Company.    Through this letter, appellant No.1 once again called upon the Collector, the  Commissioner, the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department and other officers of the  State Government to forthwith comply with the orders passed by this Court on  5.5.2004.  The authorities refused to sanction the plan in view of the pending dues.   The appellant informed the Collector, the Commissioner and other authorities that  the order was passed by this Court on 5.5.2004 only in respect of Revenue Survey  No.469/1 and the dues payable only for the said land.  It was also informed that all  the dues which were demanded by the authorities in respect of Revenue Survey No.  469/1 aggregating amount of Rs.11,80,607/-  has already been paid by the appellant  and, therefore, call upon them to comply with the order passed by this Court on  5.5.2004. In our opinion, the conduct and behaviour of the Collector, the Commissioner,  the Dy. Secretary to Revenue Department and the Deputy Commissioner are  improper and less said is better.  In our opinion, in respect of the specific direction  issued by this Court on 5.5.2004, the authorities are deliberately not complying with  the orders passed by this Court and prevented the appellants from carrying out the  construction on the lands in question for the last four years even though the  appellants have   succeeded in all the petitions before this Court. We, therefore, direct all the authorities to comply with the orders passed by  this Court on 5.5.2004 in its letter and spirit.  We extend the time for compliance  finally by four weeks from the date of the pronouncement of this judgment.  Any  lapse or delay on the part of the respondents herein will be viewed very seriously. From the above discussion by us and of the record would clearly go to show  that the following issues are covered by the earlier proceedings and finally decided  by the Courts and reached its finality and which cannot be reopened again:  1)      The lands in Survey Nos. 469/1, 470/1, 471/2, 471/3 and 472  aggregating about 952 acres sold in favour of the appellants by the  former ruler with the permission of the Collector and registered has  become final and conclusive.   2)      The lands in question being pasture land (Bid land) and not being  fit for cultivation was excluded from the purview of the Gujarat  Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960. 3)      The Right, Title Entry made in the revenue records in respect of  the lands in question in the name of the appellant has become final  and conclusive and, therefore, removal of the appellant from any of  the Survey Numbers in question is not permissible. 4)      The declaration issued by the competent authority and Additional  Collector under the ULC Act, in exercise of the power under  Section 21(1) of the ULC Act after verifying the title of the appellant  in respect of the above survey numbers is final and conclusive.   5)      The writ petition filed by the Bhavnagar Municipality for quashing  and setting aside the order dated 6.12.1979 granting exemption to  the lands and sanctioning the scheme under section 21 of the ULC  Act were valid and legal. 6)      It is not in dispute that the appellant have raised construction on  the lands and the lands have been fully developed, save and  except, the lands in Survey No. 469/1.

14

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15  

7)      The orders dated 9.11.1979 and 20.11.1979 whereby the Deputy  Collector dropped the proceedings filed by the former Ruler under  Section 8 of the ALC Act for a declaration that the sale deed dated  31.3.1971 was not effected by him with a view to defeat the ALC  Act was rejected by the Tribunal in Revision application by the  State Government.  In respect of the ALC proceedings, the said  order was finally concluded since under the ALC Act no further  appeal was preferred by the State Government.      8)      This also was not in dispute that pursuant to the cabinet decision of  the Gujarat Government, the appellants withdraw all the pending  proceedings and, thereafter notices were issued under Rule 108(6)  of the Bombay Land Revenue Code seeking to revise the right and  title Entry No.1950  principally contending that the sale deed dated  31.3.1971 was  invalid.   On the abovementioned grounds, the mutation entry was  sought to be cancelled.  The Deputy Collector, Bhavnagar held that  the ownership of the land in question was of the appellant and a  decision was taken that the revenue mutation No. 1950 as recorded in  Village Form No.6 was legal and valid which was also decided to  withdraw the show cause notice dated 27.7.1991 and to drop all the  proceedings commenced under the said notice. 9)         The Deputy Collector also confirmed the order of the City      Mamlatdar dated 16.9.1962.  The reservation of Survey No. 469/1  in favour of the Bhavnagar University had lapsed. 10)     The High Court, in its judgment, in SCA No. 1032 of 1996             quashed the notice dated 25.1.1996 of the Collector.  The High  Court observed that it is unfair for the Collector to raise various  issues such as illegal sale of bid land, breach of Saurashtra  Gharkhed Ordinance, ALC Act etc. which were closed and decided  earlier. 11)     The issue of ULC Act and ALC Act was concluded by the judgment                       of the High Court in SCA No. 941 of 1980. 12)     No further action can  be taken for disturbing the finality of the     mutation entry in view of the judgment of the High Court rendered         on 24.11.2000 in SCA No. 1032 of 1996 and, therefore, there is no       question of disturbing the mutation entry on the strength of the  contravention of the provisions of other enactments now.    13)     Civil appeal No. 5536 of 2001 preferred by the Municipal   Corporation  was dismissed as withdrawn.  Thus the issue of ULC  Act and ALC Act raised in the SCA 941 of 1980 was finally  concluded by the said judgment.   14)     In the judgment in Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills                       Ltd. (supra) , this Court decided the dispute between the Bhavnagar                       University and the appellant with reference to Gujarat Town Planning                 and Urban Development Act, 1976.  The appeal filed by the    Bhavnagar University was finally dismissed by this Court.                  15)     Review petition No. 33 of 2003 was also dismissed by this Court. Thus it is seen that the various proceedings were initiated again and again by  the authorities which have already been concluded by various orders of the Tribunal,  the High Court and of this Court.  It was fairly conceded by Mr. Sundaram, at the  time of arguments, that the matters which are finally concluded and decided by the  authorities and by the orders of the High Court and of this Court will not be reopened  again and that the matters which have not been raised and decided earlier will alone  be persuaded by the respondents.   The statement made by Mr. Sundaram is placed  on record. It was stated that the appeals have been filed against the orders passed by  the authorities with regard to the show cause notices issued.  It is open to the  appellants to pursue the appeals which have already been filed by them and we  make it clear that the authority shall consider and decide only the matters which are  not covered by and concluded by any of the earlier orders passed by the authorities,  the High Court and of this Court. It has already been noticed by us that the authorities have not issued  planning permit with reference to Survey No.469/1.  We direct all the  respondents/authorities to consider the application and sanction the plan of Survey

15

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15  

No. 469/1 and make entries in the revenue records forthwith in accordance with law.   This direction shall be complied with by the officers of the State Government within  four weeks from the date of this judgment.            It is stated by Mr. Sundaram that the appellants have constructed dwelling  units on the lands in question not in accordance with the sanctioned scheme under  the ULC Act and that the appellants have put up construction contrary to the  sanctioned scheme.  If so, it is open to the respondents to proceed against the  appellant with regard to the violation of permission granted to construct the dwelling  units on the lands in question after giving notice and after affording sufficient  opportunities to the appellant to put forth their grievance in this regard. In the result, we allow the appeals in part and direct the Collector, Bhavnagar  to grant non agricultural permission in respect of the land of about 76 acres 36  guntas comprised in Survey No. 469/1 Bhavnagar District after collecting the non- agricultural tax calculated at the rate of 5% per sq. mt. Applicable at the time when  the application was made by the applicant i.e., 24.2.2003 which aggregate to  Rs.15,57,540/-.   Dispute, if any, with regard to the tax calculated and the rate has to  be agitated separately and collected later.  The Commissioner of Bhavnagar  Municipal Corporation is directed to consider the application for sanction within four  weeks the lay out and building plans as per the current development control rules  and pass order in accordance with law.  We also direct respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to collect non-agricultural permission  charges and conversion charges for the lands bearing Survey No. 470/1, 471/2,  471/3 and 472 situated at village Vadva, Bhavnagar as prevalent in the year 1981.

We further direct respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to collect non-agricultural permission  charges and conversion charges for the land bearing Survey No. 469/1 as prevalent  on 24.2.2003, which is the date on which the appellants had applied for the grant of  non-agricultural permission for the said survey number and on receipt of payment to  grant the non-agricultural permission in respect thereof as applied for.   

For the foregoing reasons, we dispose of the appeals arising out of S.L.P.(C)  Nos. 8718-8719/2004.  In view of the disposal of the appeals, the Contempt Petition  Nos. 410 and 411 of 2004 in Special Leave Petition No. 1562/2002 and Civil Appeal  No. 5556 of 2001 are also disposed of accordingly.