Type equation here.G.L 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 for
compensation which was passed by the High Court. Our reasons for the same
are:
2. 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, the project being 100
per cent 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 U.S
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
Nos. 40/2, 41, 42, 44, 45 and 70 totally admeasuring about 68,327 square
metres. This site was included in ‘U’ Zone in the Bombay Metropolitan
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 urbanisable area.
3. The site is situated at a distance of 2 kilometres from Bhiwandi Town
having Muslim majority which has been a trouble 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 ½ km, 1 km, ½ km,
1½ kms, 2 kms and 2 kms respectively. These villages 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 surrounding villages and where the Hindus
from Bhiwandi and the aforesaid surrounding villages immerse their Ganesh
idols on the Ganpati Immersion Day.
4. After selecting the site the petitioners obtained the requisite permission
from the relevant authorities and on April 4, 1980 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 petitioners, the Panchayat
would not have any objection whatsoever as it will increase the income of the
Panchayat. Petitioners (before High Court) obtained the consent from the
Maharashtra Prevention of Water Pollution Board under Section 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 Development on January 8, 1981. On
August 11, 1980 Collector Thane was approached for permission to use the
land for non-agricultural purposes for the said plant under Section 44 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Collector granted the said
permission by his order dated April 5, 1982 subject to certain terms and
conditions.
5. 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 circumstances, the
abattoir should be permitted. Shri Varde in his turn alongwith a letter dated
January 24, 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 February 17, 1983 called for a report in the
matter from the Collector Thane who in turn called for 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 March 7, 1983 recorded
the statements of respective parties including Shri Rizwan Bubere, the holder
of a General Power of Attorney and the Tehsildar sent his report on the same
day to the Collector. Meanwhile on April 5, 1983 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
April 28, 1983 directed the petitioners to stop the construction work for a
period of 15 days pending investigation and on April 30, 1983 the government
directed the Commissioner, 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 May 9 and
11, 1983, submitted his report on May 17, 1983 and it was received by the
government on May 18, 1983. By order dated May 25, 1983 government
further stayed the construction for a period of one month.
6. On June 7, 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 June 13, 1983 and
stated that the government was reconsidering the matter and ultimately by
order dated June 14, 1983 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.
7. On August 16, 1983 one Dr Vyas filed his writ petition before the High Court
being No. 2717 of 1983 challenging the order dated April 5, 1982 of Additional
Collector, Thane granting 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 decision in the matter on or before October 15, 1983 the court modified
its interim order passed earlier and permitted construction work to continue at
the risk of the persons concerned without prejudice to the writ petition.
8. On October 7, 1983 the government issued a show cause notice in its
revisional jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Code and on October 14,
1983 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 November 2, 1983. Hon'ble Minister heard the revision on
the same day and by his order dated November 25, 1983 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
November 18, 1983 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 four persons were killed, many others injured, and property
was damaged to a considerable extent. Against the decision of the Minister
cancelling the permission granted by Additional Collector the petition was filed
in the High Court on December 5, 1983 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.
9. The main question which was raised before the High Court and also before
us is 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 19(1)(g) 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 government was bona fide and in public interest although the
learned Judges felt that the government did not act diligently 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.