Lokprakashan Ltd vs Kanchanbhai Kanbhai Tadvi & Ors

4. An application was made by the appellant Lokprakashan Limited on 19.1990 to the Municipal Commissioner for grant of 5000 Sq. Mtrs. of land belonging to the Baroda Municipal Corporation comprised in Final Plot No.1 of Town Planning Scheme No.9 situated at Baroda at a reasonable price. It was prayed in the application that the Lokprakashan daily was publishing a Gujarati Samachar daily from Baroda for the last seven years and as it did not have any premises of its own, it was operating from a rented premises.

7. It may be pertinent to mention that respondent no.1 Kanchanbhai Kanbhai Tadvi was an elected Councilor and he was present at the meeting and both the proposals were taken up for consideration in his presence and he voted in favour of the proposals to accept the recommendation of the Standing Committee for sale of the land to the appellant and opposed the proposal for not selling the land to the appellant. 4

9. The Baroda Municipal Corporation on 7.1.1991 applied to the Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat for grant of exemption under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the `Urban Act') with respect to the land sold to the appellant as well as with respect to the lands comprised in final plot No.1 of town planning scheme No.9 originally comprised in revenue survey No. 94. Exemption was sought for other lands to be sold to the Indian Airlines, Baroda Urban Development Authority and Gujarat State Fertilizers Company Ltd. as well as exemption was sought with respect to the land to be sold to the appellant.

13. The then Administrator of the Baroda Municipal Corporation on 9.11.1993 addressed a communication to the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development and the Urban Housing Department pointing out that it was decided in principle to sell 5000 Sq. Mtrs. of land to the appellant for which the State Government had also granted exemption on 27.5.1993. It was pointed out that the nearby land situated in same final plot No.1 adjoining the land sold to the appellant was sold to the Baroda Urban Development Authority at 6 Rs.900/- per Sq. Mtr. The Town Planning Valuation Department had fixed the value at Rs.1100/- per Sq. Mtr., but in view of the representation made by the appellant, it was decided to take necessary steps on that behalf.

23. According to the appellant the public interest petition filed against him was an abuse of the process of the court because the appellant was granted approval by the concerned authorities almost a decade ago and thereafter the petition 9 was filed with an oblique motive. This petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches alone.

25. According to the appellant, the impugned judgment of the High Court is wholly unsustainable in view of the law declared by this Court. There has been no explanation whatsoever for an inordinate delay for more than 10 years. The writ petition filed by the respondent deserves to be dismissed with costs.

28. The appellant had paid a sum of Rs.50 lakhs @ Rs.1000/- per Sq. Mtr. before this Court and thus, section 79 stands complied with.

33. Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

August 27, 2009.