Page 1

1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.360 of 2016 (Arising from the SLP(Civil) No.527 of 2015)

State of Gujarat and Another      ….Appellants

Versus

Shree Ratnakar Enterprise    …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Uday U. Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  challenges  the  judgment  and  order  dated

08.01.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Gujarat in Letters Patent Appeal No.218 of 2012 arising out of the

Page 2

2

dismissal  of  Special  Civil  Application No.16050 of 2011 by the

Single Judge of the High Court.  

3. The facts in the present matter are as under:

(a) The  respondent  preferred  an  application  before  the

appellant  State  for  grant  of  lease  of  land  admeasuring  1500

acres out  of Survey No.141 of Village Mundra,  Taluka Mundra,

District  Kutch  for  the  purposes  of  manufacturing  salt.  That

application  came  to  be  rejected  by  the  District  Collector  on

05.06.1993 on the ground “Land not available as asked for”. The

rejection of the application was challenged in Revision before the

Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department who remanded

the  matter  back  to  the  Collector  for  fresh  consideration.

Thereafter,  the  Collector  again  rejected  the  application  vide

order dated 18.12.1999 on the ground that the land available

with the Government was scattered over various places and land

to the tune of 1500 acres as requested was not available in one

place.  That  order  was  again  challenged  by  filing  Revision  on

02.02.2005  i.e.  more  than  five  years  after  the  rejection  of

application  on  18.12.1999.  The  revisional  authority  refused  to

condone the delay in  preferring the Revision and by its  order

Page 3

3

dated 27.04.2005 affirmed the order of rejection passed by the

Collector. A copy of the order dated 27.04.2005 was marked to

the concerned parties.   

(b) Thereafter,  a  proposal  for  setting up of  Special  Economic

Zone  at  Mundra  was  taken  up  for  consideration.  The  Central

Government vide its order dated 24.05.2009 provided for setting

up  ofSpecial  Economic  Zone  at  Mundra.  The  notification  in

question pertained to lands including Survey No.141 of Village

Mundra.  The  coastal  lands  required  for  the  Special  Economic

Zone were surrendered by various persons to the Government in

order to enable setting up of the Special Economic Zone.  

(c) Almost  six  years  after  the  disposal  of  Revision  on

27.04.2005,  the  respondent  preferred  Special  Civil  Application

No.16050 of 2011 in the High Court of Gujarat praying inter-alia

that  the  order  dated  27.04.2005  be  quashed  and  appropriate

direction be issued to allot land as prayed for by the respondent.

It was submitted that the respondent had recently become aware

about the order passed on 27.04.2005.

(d) That Special Civil Application was rejected by Single Judge of

Page 4

4

the High Court vide judgment and order dated 28.11.2011. It was

observed that the rejection of Revision in 2005 was challenged

by filing Special Civil Application in the year 2011 and that the

respondent itself had remained indolent in pursuing its remedy;

that because of such delay and latches no indulgence could be

shown  in  favour  of  the  respondent;  that  no  violation  of  any

fundamental  right  or  any  legal  right  was  shown  by  the

respondent; and that there was no infirmity in the order passed

by the revisional authority.  

(e) The decision of the Single Judge was challenged by filing

Letters Patent Appeal No.218 of 2012 before the Division Bench

of  the  High  Court.  During  the  pendency  of  this  Appeal,  an

affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellant - State that no land

was earmarked for salt production from Survey No.141 but over

the  years  lands  situated  near  coastal  area  were  allotted  to

various applicants for salt production and that said lands were

surrendered by said persons to the appellant -  State after  the

demand for land for  Mundra Special  Economic Zone came up.

The Division Bench by its judgment and order dated 08.01.2014

Page 5

5

allowed the appeal. It was observed that there was no delay on

part of the respondent as it was prosecuting the matter since the

year  1992  and  that  the  delay  was  actually  on  part  of  the

appellant - State. The Division Bench further observed that since

the respondent had applied in the year 1992 its priority ought to

be maintained and that the Collector must ensure that the land

for salt cultivation be allotted to the respondent from any survey

number within a period of three months from the receipt of the

order.  

4. The appellant  State has preferred this  Appeal  challenging

the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court submitting

inter-alia that after the establishment of Special Economic Zone

at Mundra, no land was available which could be allotted to the

respondent, that the respondent could not claim the land as a

matter  of  right  for  production  of  salt  and  that  there  was  no

infirmity in the order passed by the revisional authority.  It was

further submitted that the appellant - State had allotted small

pieces of land for salt production and no person was ever allotted

1500 acres of land for production of salt.  This Court was pleased

Page 6

6

to  issue notice in  the matter,  whereafter  the respondent  filed

affidavit in reply. It was submitted that if 1500 acres of land was

not available in Survey No.141, whatever was available could be

allotted from other  survey numbers but  the application of the

respondent could not and ought not to have been rejected.  

5. We heard Ms. Jesal Wahi, learned Advocate who appeared in

support of the Appeal and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, learned Advocate

who appeared for the respondent. After concluding the hearing

on 07.12.2015, liberty was granted to the parties to file written

submissions, if any, within two weeks. The respondent filed an

application for direction submitting inter-alia that it wished to rely

on  the  policy  of  the  State  Government  dated  31.12.1981

governing the matter in issue and that it be granted hearing to

address  this  Court  on such document.  The respondent  further

prayed for extension of time to file its written submission.  

6. We have gone through the record. At no stage the alleged

policy dated 31.12.1981 was either referred to or relied upon. No

submission was ever advanced to project the entitlement or the

extent thereof under this policy. The original application simply

made a demand that the respondent be allotted 1500 acres of

Page 7

7

land from Survey No.141 of Village Mundra. It is true that certain

allotments were made from and out of Survey No.141 of Village

Mundra  but  after  the  setting  up  of  Special  Economic  Zone at

Mundra all  those applicants have surrendered their  lands.  The

stand of the appellant - State is very clear and categorical that

there  was  no  land  available  at  Village  Mundra.  Further,  the

application  having  been  rejected  by  the  District  Collector  on

18.12.1999, Revision was preferred more than five years later.

This Revision was rejected on the ground of delay and was taken

up in challenge before the High Court again after a delay of five

years. In the circumstances the Single Judge of the High Court

was  right  in  observing  that  the  respondent  had  remained

indolent in pursuing its remedy and that because of delay and

latches  on  its  part,  no  indulgence  could  be  shown.  In  our

considered view, the Division Bench was not justified in reversing

the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge, nor was it

right in directing the Collector to allot to the respondent land for

salt production from any other survey number.  

7. In the circumstances this appeal is allowed. The judgment

and order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set-aside and

Page 8

8

that was passed by the Single Judge of the High Court is restored.

Application  for  directions  preferred  by  the  respondent  after

conclusion of hearing is rejected. No order as to costs.

………………………J.  (V. Gopala Gowda)

………………..……J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, January 19, 2016

Page 9

9

ITEM NO.1C.- For Judgment        COURT NO.10           SECTION IX                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS C.A. No.360/2016 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 527/2015 STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.                            Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS SHREE RATNAKAR ENTERPRISE                          Respondent(s) Date : 19/01/2016 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of JUDGMENT today. For Petitioner(s)  Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.                      For Respondent(s)                      Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv.            

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Uday  Umesh  Lalit  pronounced the  judgement  of  the  Bench  comprising  Hon'ble  Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and His Lordship.

Delay condoned. Leave granted. The  appeal  is  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed

non-reportable judgment.  Pending  application(s),  if  any,stand(s)  disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR) COURT MASTER

(MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER

(Signed Non-Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)