Sale of agricultural land in contravention to law and procedure - Permission granted by the Collector, Bhuj, to sell certain parcels of agricultural land situated in district Kutch, which were said to have been purchased earlier by the Respondent ..

Sale of agricultural land in contravention to law and procedure - Permission granted by the Collector, Bhuj, to sell certain parcels of agricultural land situated in district Kutch, which were said to have been purchased earlier by the Respondent No.4 herein, for industrial purpose in favour of Respondent No.5 challenged as being impermissible under It was submitted that under Section 89A of the Tenancy Act, agricultural land can be permitted to be sold by an agriculturist to another person for industrial purpose provided the proposed user is bona-fide - In the event, the land is not so utilised by such a person for such purpose, within the period as stipulated under the act, the Collector of the concerned district has to make an enquiry under sub- Section 5 thereof, give an opportunity to the purchaser with a view to ascertain the factual situation, and thereafter pass an order that the land shall vest in the State Government on payment of an appropriate compensation to the purchaser which the Collector may determine - It was contended that there was no provision for any further transfer of agricultural land from one industrial purchaser to any third party, once again, for industrial purpose when the first purchaser of agricultural land had defaulted in setting up the industry - Apart from being in breach of the law, the transaction was stated to be against public interest, and a mala-fide one resulting into a serious loss to the public exchequer - Writ Petition criticised the role of the Collector and the Revenue Minister of the State Government, and sought an inquiry against them in the present case, and also a direction to the state authorities to resume the concerned land - Impugned judgment and order rejected the said writ petition on two grounds, firstly that there was delay in initiating the said Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and that the writ petitioner had suppressed the material facts before the Court concerning the investment claimed to have been made by the Respondent No.5 - Writ petition and now this appeal raised the issues with respect to the underlying policy and purpose behind the relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act, 1958 - In that connection, it also raised the issue with respect to the duties of the revenue officers on the spot, such as the Collector, the importance of the role of senior administrative officers of the State Government, and whether a Minister of the Government can direct the administrative officers and the Collector to act contrary to the provisions and policy of the statute - Secretary of the Department of Revenue of the Government of Gujarat, and the Collector of District Kutch at Bhuj were joined as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to this appeal - Held, Whether the decision taken by the Government to permit the transfer of the agricultural land from respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 5, was legal and justified - Held, where the purchaser fails to start the industrial activity as stipulated above, Section 89A (5) requires the Collector to hold an enquiry, wherein he has to give the purchaser an opportunity of being heard - Thereafter, if he confirms such a view, he is expected to pass an order that the land shall vest in the Government which will, however, be done after determining appropriate compensation payable to the purchaser, which has to be done having regard to the price paid by the purchaser - Then the land shall be disposed of by the Government having regard to the use of the land - It is only in the event of his refusing to give the certificate of purchase for bonafide industrial purpose that an appeal lies to the State Government - Thus, where one wants to purchase agricultural land for industrial purposes, one has to first obtain the permission of the Industries Commissioner - Purchaser has also to inform the Collector about the purchase within 30 days of such purchase, and obtain a certificate that the land is purchased for a bonafide industrial purpose - He has to see to it that the industrial activity starts in three years from the date of such certificate, and the production of goods and services also starts within five years thereof, which period can be extended by the State Government, in an appropriate case - In the event the purchaser fails to commence such industrial activity, the Collector has to make an enquiry, and thereafter pass an appropriate order of resumption of the land on determining the compensation - Thus, the entire authority in this behalf is with the Collector and none other - Whereas Sections 89 and 89A contemplate a certain procedure and certain requirements, what was done in the present matter was quite different - State Government is an Appellate Authority under sub-section 3 of Section 89A, and it could not have given a direction to the Collector who was supposed to take the decision under his own authority - Present case was held to be clearly a case of dictation by the State Government to the Collector - State cannot ignore the policy intent and the procedure contemplated by the statute - In the instant case, the State could have acquired the land, and then either by auction or by considering the merit of the proposal of Respondent No.5 allotted it to Respondent No.5 - Assuming that the application of the Respondent No 5 was for a bona-fide purpose, the same had to be examined by the industrial commissioner, to begin with, and thereafter it should have gone to the collector - After the property vests in the Government, even if there were other bidders to the property, the collector could have considered the merits and the bona-fides of the application of Respondent No. 5, and nothing would have prevented him from following the course permissible under the law - It is not merely the end but the means which are of equal importance, particularly if they are enshrined in the legislative scheme - Minimum that was required was an enquiry at the level of the Collector who is the statutory authority and dictating him to act in a particular manner on the assumption by the Minister that it is in the interest of the industrial development would lead to a breach of the mandate of the statute framed by the legislature - Ministers are not expected to act in this manner and therefore, this particular route through the corridors of the Ministry, contrary to the statute, cannot be approved - Present case was clearly one of dereliction of his duties by the Collector and dictation by the Minister, showing nothing but arrogance of power - Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court - Relevant direction of the State Government and the consequent order issued by the Collector of Kutch on held to be arbitrary, and bad in law for being in violation of the scheme and the provisions of Sections 89 and 89A of the Tenancy Act - Collector to proceed in accordance with Section 89A(5) viz., to hold an enquiry to decide whether the purchaser viz. Indigold had failed to commence the industrial activity and the production of goods and services within the period specified - In the instant case, there was no need of any such direction to hold an enquiry, in view of the letter of Indigold itself wherein, it clearly stated that they were no more interested in putting up any industrial project in the said land - Consequently, the land to vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances - This vesting order, however, has to be on payment of appropriate compensation to the purchaser as the Collector may determine - Appeal allowed in part and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court was set-aside