POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: Supreme Court In Absence of Minimum Fee, Compounding by Revenue Officials Is Not Criminal Misconduct: Kerala High Court Clarifies Power, Quashes FIR Against Two Accused If You’re in Service on 31st March, You Get the Revised Pay: Supreme Court Affirms Right to 2017 Pay Revision for March 2016 Retirees Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court

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