ivil Appeal Nos
256 of 1985 and 4875 of 1984
From the Judgment and Order dated 24th August 1984 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition
4232 of 1983
Ram Jethmalani Khatu Cooper SB Bhasme Ms Rani Jethmalani Tushad Cooper G Subramaniam Ashok Sharma Ajai Singh Chandal VS Desai AS Bhasme AM Khanwilkar for the appearing parties
K Parasaran Attorney General PH Parekh and Ms Indu Malhotra for the Interveners
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA J
These two appeals were heard by us and by our order dated March 10 1986 we maintained the judgment of the High Court and dismissed both the appeals by this order we modified the order 894 for compensation which was passed by the High Court
Our reasons for the same are The necessary facts for the disposal of these appeals are that the appellant in one of the appeals before this Court who was the third petitioner before the High Court is a private limited company incorporated for the purposes of carrying among others the business of exporting frozen meat of buffaloes sheep and goats
The Al Kabeer Exports Pvt
Ltd alongwith other two took initiative in the business and obtained an import licence a project being 100 export oriented
The licence they obtained stipulated the entire production of the plant to be exported for 10 years and the construction and the operation of the project were to be according to the standards of hygiene prevailing in the European Economic Community Countries and of the US Foods and Drugs Administration
The plant was to be equipped with the most modern equipments
The petitioners selected a site of agricultural lands in village Savandhe in Bhiwandi Taluka of Thane District comprised in Survey No 402 41 42 44 45 and 70 totally admeasuring about 68327 square metres
This site was included in U Zone in the Bombay Metropoli tan Regional Plan for the period from 1970 to 1991 prepared under the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act 1974 U Zone denoting that the land was future urban isable area
The site is situated at a distance of 2 kilometres from Bhiwandi Town having Muslim majority which has been a trou ble spot for communal riots for past some years with the surrounding villages of Savandhe Gorsai Shelar Chavindra Pogoan and Bhorpada situate at a distance of 12 kin 1 km 12 Inn 112 km 2 km and 2kms
respectively
These vil lages have a population of about 400 1500 3000 2500 500 and 1500 respectively majority of the population of all these villages being Hindus
This site is situated on the bank of river Kamawari whose water is used for the purposes of drinking and washing by the inhabitants of the surround ing villages and where the Hindus from Bhiwandi and the aforesaid surrounding villages immerse their Ganesh idols on the Ganpati Immersion Day
After selecting the site the petitioners obtained the requisite permission from the relevant authorities and on 441980 they obtained permission from the Sarpanch of the Group Gram Panchayat of Savandhe which certificate stated that if the land comprised in the site of the plant was converted into non agricultural plot in favour of the peti tioner the Panchayat would not have any objection what 895 soever as it will increase the income of the Panchayat
Petitioners High Court
obtained the consent from the Maharashtra Prevention of Water Pollution Board under Sec tion 28 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Water Pollution Act 1969 to discharge the effluents from the proposed plant in the water pollution prevention area of Ulhas River basin as notified under Section 18 of the Act subject to certain terms and conditions
The proposed plant was registered as an industry by  the Director General of Technical Develop ment on 8th January 1981
On 11880 Collector Thane was approached for permission to use the land for non agricul tural purposes for the said plant under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Act 1966
Collector granted the said permission by his order dated 541982 subject to certain terms and conditions
It appears that thereafter some trouble started and the villagers round about Bhiwandi town which included also the villages mentioned above addressed a complaint to one Shri Sadanand Varde MLA from Bombay making the following grievances i that the construction of the abattoir has been started without the permission of the Gram Panchayat ii that cows bulls and buffaloes were to be slaughtered in the abattoir iii the abattoir was likely to pollute the air giving rise to diseases endangering the health of the villagers iv that discharge of effluent from the abattoir in the river would pollute the river water which was used for drinking both by the villagers and cattle thereby endangering the life of the villagers as well as the cattle which is the means of livelihood of the villagers v that the prices of land would be reduced on account of pollution thereby preventing the industrial development of the villages and vi the religious feelings of the Hindus in Bhiwandi town and the villages would be hurt since the effluents from the abattoir would be discharged in the river where traditionally Hindus were immersing their Ganesh idols
The villagers therefore prayed that under no circum stances the abattoir should be permitted
Shri Varde in his turn alongwith a letter dated 24th January 1983 forwarded the said complaint to the Revenue Minister of the State Government with a request to consider the objections of the villagers and to stop the construction in the meanwhile
On the basis of this letter it appears that the Government on 17283 called for a report in the matter from the Collector Thane who in turn called a report from the Tehsildar Thane and Tehsildar Thane in his turn issued a notice to all the parties including the promoters of this project and on 7383 recorded the statements of respective parties in cluding Shri Rizwan Bubere the holder of a General Power of Attorney and the Tehsildar sent his report on the same day to the Collector
In the 896 meantime on 5483 a detailed representation was received against the venture abattoir by the Revenue Minister of the State from the Sarpanch of Savandhe Gorsai Group of Gram Panchayat and others
In this representation more or less similar grounds as were initially raised in representation to the MLA were raised
The Government by its order dated 28th April 1983 directed the petitioners to stop the con struction work for a period of 15 days pending investigation and on 30th April 1983 the Government directed the Commis sioner Konkan Division to submit his detailed report on the complaint received from the villagers by holding an on the spot inspection
The Commissioner made enquiries and on the spot inspection on 9th and 11th May 1983 submitted his report on 17th May 1983 it was received by the Govern ment on 18th May 1983
By order dated 2551983 Government further stayed the construction for a period of one month
On 7th June 1983 Al Kabeer Exports Pvt Ltd and others filed a petition before the High Court challenging the order of stay granted by the Government and obtained an ad interim stay of the Government s order pending admission of the Writ Petition
Government filed their affidavit on 13683 and stated that the Government was reconsidering the matter and ultimately by order dated 14683 High Court admitted the writ petition and continued the interim relief of stay granted but Government was directed to pass its final orders in the matter
On 1681983 one Dr Vyas filed his Writ Petition before the High Court being No 2717 of 1983 challenging the order dated 54
1982 of Additional Collector Thane grant ing permission to the petitioners for converting the land to non agricultural use and prayed for stoppage of construction work and on the same day ad interim stay was granted by the High Court
It appears that on a statement made by the GoVernment counsel that Government would take a final deci sion in the matter on or before 15 1083 the Court modified its interim order passed earlier and permitted construction work to continue at the risk of the persons concerned with out prejudice to the writ petition
On 7th October 1983 the Government issued a show cause notice in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Code and on 141083 the petitioners were supplied with the grounds on which the Government proposed to revise the order of Additional Collector Thane
The appellants herein replied to the show cause notice and the grounds by their written submissions dated 21183
Hon ble Minister heard the revision on the same day and by his order dated 25111983 897 set aside the order of Additional Collector and cancelled the permission granted to the appellants to use the land for purposes of their said project
In the meanwhile on 181183 violent riots had taken place directed against the setting up of the abattoir in the village Savandhe and in the clashes of rioters with the police personnel 4 persons were killed many others injured and property was damaged to a considerable extent
Against the decision of the Minis ter cancelling the permission granted by Additional Collec tor the petition was filed in the High Court on 51283 under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the decision of the Government and it is that petition which gave rise to the present two appeals
The main question which was raised before the High Court and also before us about the scope of Section 257 of the said Revenue Code and power of State Government in exercise of revisional jurisdiction
It was also incidentally raised that revisional powers could not be exercised beyond 90 days
Grounds under Article 191g also were raised
The learned Judges of the High Court have examined the scope of Sections 44 and 257 of the Revenue Code in detail and after considering all the facts and circumstances came to the conclusion that the Government had the power to revise even suo motu orders passed by Additional Collector and found that the grounds on the basis of which the Government acted existed and therefore the action on the part of the Govern ment was bonafide and in public interest although the learned Judges felt that the Government did not act dili gently but still in the public interest the High Court maintained the order passed by the Government with the directions to compensate the persons concerned
Mainly it is on this ground that the learned Judges of the High Court have maintained the order passed by the Government
After hearing arguments at length in our opinion the view taken by the High Court appears to be correct
We see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the High Court as we have observed earlier
We therefore dismissed both the appeals
PSS Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The petitioner appellant carrying on the business of exporting frozen meat of buffaloes sheep and goat sought to establish an abattoir meat processing plant and a cold storage in a riots prone area near Bombay
The site was situated on the bank of a river whose water is used for purposes of drinking and washing besides religious usage by the inhabitants of the surrounding villages
The Sarpanch of the Group Gram Panchayat granted no objection certifi cate
The District Collector granted permission to use the land for non agricultural purposes for the said plant under s44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 on April 5 1982
At this stage the villagers raised objections to the setting up of the plant and made a representation to the Revenue Minister alleging that construction of the abattoir and discharge of effluent from the abattoir into the river would pollute the river water which was used for drinking purposes
The Government issued a show cause notice to the appellants on October 7 1983 under s2S7 of the Code for cancellation of the order of the District Collector
The Minister heard the revision and by his order dated November 25 1983 set aside the order of the District Collector
Aggrieved by the said order the appellants fried a petition in the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the decision of the Government cancelling the permission
The High Court upheld the order of the Government but directed it to pay compensation for the cost incurred in setting up the project up to October 7 1983 being the date when show cause notice was issued
893 The petitioners appealed to this Court by special leave against upholding of the impugned order while the State preferred the appeal  by special leave against the direction for payment of the compensation
Dismissing the cross appeals this Court confirmed the judgment of the High Court upholding the order of the Gover ment
It also held the appellants entitled to compensation in lieu of costs incurred on the project and interest on the compensation amount for the period subsequent to October 7 1983
Pronouncing the reasons the Court HELD The High Court has examined the scope of ss44 and 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 in detail and after considering all the facts and circumstances came to the conclusion that the Government had the power to revise even suo moto orders passed by the Collector and found that the grounds on the basis of which the Government acted existed and therefore the action on the part of the Gov ernment was bona fide and in public interest although it did not act diligently but still in public interest the High Court maintained the order passed by the Government with the direction to compensate the persons concerned
The view taken by the High Court appears to he correct
There is no reason to interfere with it
879D F