ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. This is a wholly misconceived petition filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation by a person who claims to be a small agriculturist and a resident of the same village wherein the land in question situate, which has been allotted to the respondent no. 6 - Company in the year 2022.
2. By means of the present petition, the only challenge is to the order dated 27.01.2025 whereby the original allotment order dated 30.06.2022 has been modified, to make correction in the description of the land allotted to the private company namely the respondent no. 6. The
Page 1 of 5
contention in the writ petition is that the order dated 27.01.2025 suffers from illegality, arbitrariness and having been passed in breach of the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 and the Rules made thereunder, being in violation of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be allowed to sustain.
3. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is about contravention of the provisions of Section 29 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 read with Rule 14 of the Gujarat Land Ceiling (Amendment Rules), 2014 made thereunder. The submission is that the procedure for allotment of the surplus land to a person for industrial purposes has not been followed by the competent authority.
4. But the fact remains that there is no challenge to the initial allotment order dated 30.06.2022, which as per own case, the petitioner has been modified by the order impugned dated 27.01.2025.
5. In fact, the present petition is a second writ petition filed for the same cause of action by a different person. Initially,
Page 2 of 5
Special Civil Application No. 1788 of 2023 was filed by another resident of the village, challenging the allotment order dated 30.06.2022 on various grounds. The said writ petition has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 13.04.2023, wherein the followings finding have been returned by this Court:-
"51. So far as the Special Civil Application no.1788 of 2023 is concerned the petitioner who is respondent no.5 in Special Civil Application no.20083 of 2019 has admittedly no locus to challenge the allotment of the land by Government Resolution dated 30.06.2022 in favour of the company. The Resolution dated 30.06.2022 is passed after taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder as amended from time to time. The Government Resolution dated 19.07.2019 has permitted the State Government to allot the Government land to any person or institution for industrial purpose or for the purpose of development of such land provided equivalent agricultural land is given in exchange by such person or institution. Admittedly, in the facts of the case, the petitioner company has already given land in exchange of the land which is allotted by the Government as the allotted land is within the project area of the company. Therefore, the petitioner of Special Civil Application no.1788 of 2023 using the issue with regard to the breach of the provisions of Section 29 and 30 of the Act read with amendments and the Government Resolution dated 19.07.2019 are only an eyewash so as to save the land of the agriculturists situated within the project area of the company. It appears that Special Civil Application no.1788 of 2023 is only filed with a view to pressurize the company to permit the agriculturists to use the way/ road passing through the project area of the company to reach their respective agricultural land or to sell their land to the company as such land is situated around the
Page 3 of 5
land acquired by the company by private negotiations or the allotment made by the resolution dated 30.06.2022. Therefore without considering the intricacies of the applicability of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, Special Civil Application no.1788 of 2023 is not entertained in view of the fact that the petitioner of the said petition has no locus to challenge the Government Resolution dated 30.06.2022 for its personal gain as he cannot be said to be an interested person in view of the Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300(A) of the Constitution of India. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner of Special Civil Application no.1788 of 2023 for allotment of the land by the Government as per the provision of the Act and Rules.
6. A perusal of findings returned in paragraph no. '51' of the judgment and order dated 13.04.2023 of rejection of the first Writ Petition challenging the order of allotment dated 30.06.2022 categorically indicates that the respondent no. 6 - Company herein/petitioner therein had given land in exchange for the land which was allotted by the Government for industrial purposes within the project area of the company. The arguments made by the petitioner therein with regard to the breach of the provisions of Sections 29 and 30 of the Act read with the amendments and the Government Resolution dated 19.07.2019 had been rejected being only an eyewash and it was recorded that a Writ Petition of the year 2023 was filed with a view to pressurize the company to permit the agriculturist to use the way/road
Page 4 of 5
passing through the project area of the company to reach their agricultural land or sell their land to the company as such land is situated around the land acquired by the company by private negotiation.
7. Taking note of the above, as the challenge to the allotment order dated 30.06.2022 has already been upturned by this Court in the previous round of litigation initiated by another person/agriculturist of the village, the challenge to the modification order dated 27.01.2025 to the original order of allotment dated 30.06.2022, raised in the present petition on the ground that the procedure prescribed for the allotment of land for industrial purposes to the respondent no. 6 - company in terms of Section 29 r/w Rule 14 of the Rules made under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 has not been followed, is found to be wholly misconceived.
8. The present petition is dismissed being wholly misconceived without any order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
VARSHA DESAI
Page 5 of 5