Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Decision to Allot Industrial Plots Without Public Auction Is Flawed: Gujarat High Court Voids GIDC's Land Exchange Deal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Gujarat High Court has declared the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation’s (GIDC) decision to allot industrial plots without public auction invalid. The court found the exchange deed, which swapped developed industrial plots for agricultural lands, flawed and criticized the GIDC for procedural irregularities and potential collusion. The ruling emphasizes the need for transparency and adherence to legal norms in land allotment processes.

The court highlighted significant flaws in the decision-making process, noting that the GIDC's Vice Chairman and Managing Director took unilateral decisions without the collective approval of the Board of Directors. "The delegation of powers in this context was unauthorized, and the decisions lacked transparency and procedural integrity," the court remarked.

The court found that the exchange deed, which involved swapping 30,000 sq.mtrs. of developed industrial plots for 34,743 sq.mtrs. of agricultural lands, was not properly evaluated. The court observed, "The assertion that both lands were of the same valuation is misleading and unsupported by a valid valuation report."

The judgment raised concerns about possible collusion between the GIDC officials and the private party, respondent No.5. It noted that the agricultural lands were purchased at a throwaway price and quickly exchanged for high-value industrial plots. The court stated, "The actions of respondent No.5 indicate profiteering at the expense of public interest, facilitated by GIDC officials."

Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal remarked, "The exchange of fully developed plots with underdeveloped agricultural lands, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be in the interest of the Corporation or beneficial to the public exchequer."

The Gujarat High Court’s ruling underscores the importance of following proper procedures and maintaining transparency in public land transactions. The decision serves as a reminder of the need for stringent oversight in the management of public assets to prevent misuse and ensure public trust in governmental processes.

Date of Decision: May 17, 2024

Satyajeet Kumar vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Latest Legal News