IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 76 of 2012 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= RATADIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT & 1 - PETITIONER Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - RESPONDENT ========================================================= Appearance :
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE for PETITIONER : 1 - 2.
MR PK JANI, LD.GOVERNMENT PLEADER with MR RASHESH RINDANI, LD.ASST.GOVT. PLEADER for RESPONDENT : 1, None for RESPONDENT : 2 - 4.
========================================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 30/08/2012 CAV JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
1. By way of this writ-petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated March 16, 2012 passed by the respondent No.2- Collector, Kachchh and thereby allotting the land admeasuring Hectares 06-50-00 sq.mts. out of the land bearing Survey No.255 situated at village Ratadiya, Taluka Nakhatrana, District Kachchh, in favour of respondent No.4 for the project of wind farm.
2. The case as made out by the petitioners in this petition may be summarised as under :
2.1 The petitioner No.1 is a body constituted under the Gujarat Panchayat Act. The petitioner No.2 is the Sarpanch of the petitioner No.1-Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioners that this petition is being preferred purely in public interest complaining as regards allotment of 'Gauchar' land in favour of respondent No.4 for industrial use. In the year 2008, there was a move to allot the 'Gauchar' land of the village and at that point of time the Panchayat had resolved that no parcel of 'Gauchar' land be allotted for industrial or commercial use. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2009, their earlier decision was reconsidered and it was resolved that the land may be allotted in favour of Innercon Company for the limited purpose of erecting poles for the wind farm project. However, even after erecting the poles, the land was to be kept open for grazing of cattle.
2.2 It is the case of the petitioners that they have noticed that some industrial activity has commenced in the part of 'Gauchar' land of the village. On inquiry it was found that the respondent No.4 had started erecting poles for the project of wind farm. The inquiry further revealed that the respondent No.2-Collector, Kachchh, vide order dated March 16, 2012, has allotted Hectares 06-50-00 square metres of land of Survey No.255 of village Ratadiya, in favour of respondent No.4, subject to certain terms and conditions.
2.3 It is the case of the petitioners that this allotment of land in favour of respondent No.4 will prove to be detrimental to the interest of the villagers as the area of 'Gauchar' land will get curtailed and the cattle of the village will be affected.
This is the substratum of the case of the petitioners.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS :
3. Mr.Kirtidev Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners, vehemently submitted that the respondent No.2-Collector could not have allotted the 'Gauchar' land admeasuring Hectares 06-50-00 square metres in favour of respondent No.4 for the purpose of project of wind farm. According to Mr.Dave, this activity on behalf of respondent No.4 will lead to ecological imbalance as it is very likely that due to such activity many environmental issues may crop up.
3.1 Mr.Dave further submitted that there are around 1500 cattle in the village and if such a huge area of 'Gauchar' land is allotted for industrial use, the cattle of the village will be affected. Mr.Dave also submitted that the respondent No.2- Collector, Kachchh, before allotting the land ought to have considered that as far as possible the 'Gauchar' land should be protected and should not be permitted to be used for any other purpose other than the purpose for which the land is vested with the Panchayat. Mr.Dave, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the respondent No.2-Collector, Kachchh, dated March 16, 2012 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it appears that the total area of the land bearing Survey No.255 is around 816 Hectares as reflected from Village Form No.7 (Annexure-K to the petition). It also appears from the record that around 300 acres of land was earmarked for 'Gauchar' way back in the year 1967 as reflected from the document at Annexure-M. Considering the area of the land bearing Survey No.255, it could not be said that a very substantial portion of 'Gauchar' land has been allotted in favour of respondent No.4, which would affect the cattle of the village which are around 1500 in number. It also appears that no undue favour could be said to have been shown or showered upon the respondent No.4 in allotment of the land in question. As a part of the policy of the State Government to promote the project of wind farm which is essential for generation of energy, the land has been allotted in favour of respondent No.4. The materials on record would suggest that after necessary inquiries in this regard and after obtaining opinions of various authorities like Mamlatdar, District Inspect of Land Records (DILR), Geologist, etc., the allotment of land has been made in favour of respondent No.4. The allotment has been made on lease basis for a period of 20 years. The yearly rent which has been fixed per hectare is Rs.10,000/- as provided by resolution dated December 02, 2004 of the State Government. All other taxes are to be borne by the respondent No.4.
5. In overall view of the matter, it could not be said that the decision of the authorities is arbitrary and based on no reason whatsoever, but even on mere ipse dixit of the said authorities. Under such circumstances, we do not find any merits in this petition and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Chief Justice)
(J.B. Pardiwala, J.)
Aakar