Competent Authority Can't Act Beyond Show Cause Notice: Gujarat High Court Cancels Forfeiture Of Land Allotted To Trust For Developing Playground
The Gujarat High Court has recently quashed the order passed by the Collector, Banaskantha which forfeited the allotment of land to a Public Trust for the purpose of developing a playground for school children. The High Court also directed the Respondent authority to decide the application for renewal of lease submitted by the Petitioner-Trust within 8 weeks.The development ensued after...
The Gujarat High Court has recently quashed the order passed by the Collector, Banaskantha which forfeited the allotment of land to a Public Trust for the purpose of developing a playground for school children. The High Court also directed the Respondent authority to decide the application for renewal of lease submitted by the Petitioner-Trust within 8 weeks.
The development ensued after the Court noted that the competent government authority had passed the order for forfeiture, beyond the show cause notice that was issued to the Petitioner.
Whereas, the show cause notice alleged violation of Condition no. 10 and 12, relating to measurement of the land in question, the Revisional authority rejected the Petitioner's representation citing non-compliance of Condition no. 2 and 6, relating to land use and construction of school building within specified time.
"It is specifically observed by the revisional authority that the petitioner has not constructed the building on the land in question and the petitioner has not used the land for the purpose for which it was allotted. Once again, it is required to be noted that no such allegations are levelled against the petitioner by the Collector while issuing the show cause notice or while passing the order. Thus, it appears that the respondent – Government – Revisional Authority has passed the order beyond the show cause notice," the Bench observed.
The brief facts of the case were that the Petitioner-Trust had set up a school at a certain land was now seeking the expansion of land for the development of a playground for school children. The said land was allotted to the Petitioner at a nominal rate of Re. 1 per annum for a period of 15 years for the same in 1991. The Petitioner claimed it incurred expenditure worth Rs. 2 lakhs to carry out the levelling of the said land to make it suitable for construction. The Petitioner submitted that the Collector issued a show cause notice in 1999 to the Petitioner for violation of certain conditions and therefore, show cause as to why the land should not be forfeited. Subsequent to the Petitioner's reply, the impugned order was passed which forfeited the allotment of land to the Petitioner. The Petitioner challenged the same before the Revisional Authority but the order was upheld.
In the instant petition, the Applicant sought ad-interim relief for staying the impugned orders. The Petitioner averred that due to a situation of drought and financial incapacity, the school could not be constructed. However, now that the financial condition of the Trust had improved, the school was being completed. It was also indicated that 1600 students were studying in the school run by the Petitioner Trust and 500 students were using the land as a playground. The Petitioners also denied the contention that they had encroached upon government land as they had also sought a renewal of the lease.
Taking into account these contentions, the Bench concluded that the Trust had undertaken expenditure for constructing the playground. The Trust had also not violated any conditions as alleged in the show cause notice. Yet the Revisional Authority had upheld the order basis the violation of these conditions. The Revisional Authority had also wrongly held that the land was not used for the requisite purpose in the order. However, the same was not alleged in the show cause notice. Therefore, the Authority acted beyond the scow cause notice.
Notably, the Petitioner had undertaken to complete the necessary construction within the stipulated time if the lease was renewed. The Respondent authorities had also not decided the application for renewal of lease and instead forfeited the land. Accordingly, the petition was admitted, and the authorities were directed to consider the application for renewal of lease within 8 weeks.
Case No.: SHREE HINDVANI AANJNA PATEL KELAVNI MANDAL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
Case Title: C/SCA/19861/2007
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 249
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment