http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: RAJVAIDYA GUNE’S SHAHU ARYOUSHADHIKARKHANA LTD. & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE COLLECTOR OF KOLHAPUR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/09/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R Leave granted.      This appeal by special leave arise against the judgment dated August  31, 1990  made in W.P. No. 3278/81 by the High Court of  Bombay. The admitted facts are that the appellants had from the Government 4 acres of land on April 5, 1946 for construction of  Karkhana in  the industrial zone subject to the following conditions :-      "(a) The  land (and the building to      be constructed  thereon) should  be      used for  the purpose  for which it      is granted,  viz.  Manufacture  and      sale of  Ayurvedic  Medicines,  and      conducting an  Ayurvedic School  or      College, and an Ayurvedic Hospital.      (b) The  management  of  the  Shahu      Aryopushadhi Karkhana  should agree      to abide  by all the building rules      and  regulations   of  he  Kolhapur      Municipal Borough ; and      (c)  The   management  should  also      agree to  purify its  discharges to      such extent  as may be laid down by      the Municipality  from time to time      and let  them out  in the Municipal      drains and sewage at such intervals      and at  such times  as may be fixed      by the  Municipality from  time  to      time."      On the  inspection made by the Collector, he found that 1 Hectare 29 acres of land allotted to him was to be vacant; that  he   had  the   information  that  the  appellant  was attempting  to   alienate  the   property;  and    that  the appellants had  not used  the assigned land in compliance of the three  conditions  enumerated  hereinbefore.  Therefore, notice was  given to  the appellant as to why the land could not be  resumed; If no reply was not received within 10 days from the  date of  the receipt  of the  letter, it was to be presumed that  the appellants  had no cause or grievance for

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

resumption of  the land  by the Government. After passage of two years,   they  gave reply  on February 5, 1980. An order came to  be passed  after consideration  of the  submissions made by  the appellants  on September  5, 1981 rejecting the contentions opposing  presumption of  the land. Calling that order in  question,   they filed a writ petition in the High Court. The  High  Court  in  the  above  writ  petition  had dismissed the same.      Shri V.N. Ganpule, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants,  contended that  under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the Collector has no power to resume the land and that, therefore, the action taken by the Collector is  without authority  of law. We find no force in the contention.  Admittedly, the  Collector being the  Chief Executive, Revenue  Head of  the District  and the  property being  situated   within  Kohlapur   District,  he  had  the competence   to inspect the land; he found that the land was not used  for the purpose for which the grant was made under the Government  Grant Act.  Consequently,  he  noticed  that there was  a breach  of the covenants in the grant, a notice was issued to the  appellants as to why the lands granted in their favour  should  not  be  resumed.  He  had  power  and competence   to initiate  the   action for  cancellation  of grant and  for resumption  thereof. Even  belated show cause notice was  duly considered  by the  District Collector  who refused to  accede to the request made to him. Consequently, the resumption became  valid. The High Court, therefore, has not committed any error of law in this behalf.      It was also contended in the High Court that subsequent to the  resumption order passed by the Collector followed by actual resumption,  the Government  have passed a resolution on   November 21, 1987 for regrant subject to the conditions mentioned thereunder.  We do  not have  the advantage to see the grounds on which the re-grant was sought to be made etc. However, the High Court refused to go into that question. It may be  open to the appellants to make an application to the District Collector  and it  is for the District Collector to consider and  dispose it  of according  to  already  made  a representation  before  the  Commissioner  and  it  was  not considered. It  is seen  that  the  direction  was  to  make representation   before    the   Collector   and   not   the Commissioner. It  was a  misconceived action  taken   by the appellants. He  did not  avail of  the remedy as directed by the High Court. Therefore, we cannot go into that question.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.