1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8902 OF 2007 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate i/b.R.M.G.Law Associates for petitioner Ms.P.S.Cardozo, A.G.P. for State. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 18th January 2008 P.C. . The petitioners Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. are impugning the order passed by the Additional Collector, Jawhar Division, Dist.Thane 2 cancelling the non agricultural permission granted to them for setting up an L.P.G. Bottling plant at Mouje Velgaon, Taluka Palghar and more particularly on S.No.1-2/1 (Pt)., 6(Pt), 49(Pt), 48(Pt) admeasuring 1,21,261.00 sq.mtrs. 2. When this petition was placed before me earlier, I had directed learned A.G.P. to take instructions. Yesterday when the matter was placed before me, I directed that the Additional Collector should remain present today. Accordingly, Ms.Cardozo, learned A.G.P. after taking instructions makes a statement that the order passed by the Additional Collector is appealable and Divisional Commissioner is competent to decide the appeal. Even further appeal lies therefrom to the State Government. She also submits that the impugned order has been passed on account of complaints made to the Lokayukta and an enquiry initiated in pursuance of the same. She submits that there are 3 complaints from Gram Sabha with regard to the user of these lands as the said lands fall within the scheduled areas. 3. Mr.Thorat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner does not dispute the existence of the remedy under the Land Revenue Code. However, he submits that the impugned order has been passed in the light of the communication received from the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division dated 18th September 2007 and on account of the complaints made by the Sarpanch, Group Grampanchayat to Lokayukta on 13th July 2007. 4. Mr.Thorat’s submission is that Chapter III A has been inserted in Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 by Maharashtra Act 27 of 2003 and it comes into effect on 8th August 2003. The said permission which has been granted for non agricultural user is dated 20th December 2000. 4 In such circumstances, neither there is any power to Gram Sabha to object to the user which is purely on a private land but even if there being any such power, the said power cannot be exercised to reopen the non agricultural permission issued in 2000. In other words, the amendment of 2003 to the Act does not empower cancellation of the permission granted in the year 2000. Ms.Cardozo submits that even this aspect of the matter would be examined at the appellate level and uninfluenced by any directions issued by any Authority. She submits that the petitioners can also approach the State Government if they feel that the Commissioner would not be in a position to take a decision independently. 5. In my view, bearing in mind the controversy, so also existence of remedies under the Land Revenue Code, it would be fair, just and proper to relegate the petitioners to the remedy 5 of appeal before the State Government. However, said appeal would be heard by the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Maharashtra. Needless to state that the said authority shall exercise powers uninfluenced by any directions or resolutions and strictly in accordance with law. The Principal Secretary will also examine the pleas raised by the petitioners with regard to the absence of powers in the Gram Sabha to object to the user by petitioners herein. He shall also examine the question as to whether the property being private property and although, situated in Scheduled Area, owner having obtained prior permission for its alienation so also for non agricultural user, whether on account of the objections raised by the Gram Sabha, the Collector could quash and set aside the non agricultural permission granted earlier. All such issues and matters must be gone into without being influenced by any command or resolution or decision. The said Principal 6 Secretary to decide the controversy after hearing both sides and pass a speaking order. Parties shall appear before the Principal Secretary on 28th January 2008 and the Principal Secretary to endeavour and decide the appeal without raising any objection on the point of limitation but on merits and pass speaking order thereon within six weeks from the date of appearance of parties. Ad-interim order passed by this Court to continue until the Principal Secretary renders his decision. All contentions in that behalf are kept open. Petition disposed of. No costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)