Recently, Gujarat High Court ruled in favour of Reliance Industries Limited’s (RIL) land dispute in Jamnagar regarding its Special Economic Zone (SEZ). The Court upheld the rejection of the claim for restoration of land allotted to Reliance for Jamnagar SEZ.

Rejecting a claim for restoration of land allotted decades ago Justice Devan M Desai delivered the judgment on October 14. The court held that a claim made thirty three years after cancellation of allotment cannot be restored when the reason for delay is not explained.

The court set aside the October 2008 order of the State’s Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals), whereby he had ordered to reconsider the claim for restoration.

The disputed land is located at Navagam village in Jamnagar taluka in Gujarat and measures about nine acres. It was originally allotted to Deva Sajan Rabari in June 1962 for the purpose of agricultural cultivation.

The land allotment was cancelled in December 1972 when the authorities noted that Rabari failed to take possession of the land and cultivate it within two years of allotment.

Claiming to be legal heirs of Deva Sajan Rabari, they approached the Jamnagar Collector in 2005 seeking restoration of the land. The Collector rejected the claim in May 2006 on the ground that it was time-barred.

In the meanwhile Gujarat government allotted the disputed land to Reliance along with another 9,990 acres for setting up a petroleum and petrochemical SEZ at Jamnagar in April 2008.

Reliance Industries paid the consideration and got possession of the land. It also began construction activities for development of SEZ.

The special secretary of Revenue Department (Appeals) of the State directed reconsideration of the claim for restoration while dismissing Reliance’s application to be heard in the matter in October 2008.

Reliance approached the High Court challenging the order. Reliance argued that decision to reopen the claim thirty years after cancellation of allotment will have an adverse effect on the rights created thereafter in favour of Reliance.

The legal heirs argued that the original order cancelling allotment was passed without affording an opportunity to the predecessor. They further argued that allotment to Reliance was subject to the pending litigation challenging the same.

Rejecting these arguments the High Court noted that there was no evidence on record to show that original allottee took possession of the land and cultivated it. The court further observed that the original allottee never questioned the cancellation during his lifetime. At best the reason that he did not come to know about the cancellation for thirty three years, would not be a sufficient reason to justify the delay.

The High Court said that the special secretary erred in not appreciating the delay of 33 years and took a concluisve view that land was under cultivation despite no such evidence was placed on record.

Rejecting arguments that allotment to Reliance was subject to the litigation pending in the court the High Court noted that the fact that a suit is pending does not mean the court would determine the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The High Court further noted that the civil suit filed by the legal heirs was dismissed for default in 20.

The Court allowed the petition by Reliance Industries thereby setting aside the order of October 2008 passed by the special secretary and upholding the order of May 2006 passed by the Collector rejecting the claim for restoration.

Senior Advocate Mihir Joshi along with advocates Kunal Vyas, Devarsh Trivedi and Shivam Chokshi of Gandhi Law Associates appeared for Reliance Industries Limited. Advocate Manan Brahmbhatt appeared for legal heirs and Assistant Government Pleader Rajvi Shah appeared for the State.