Illegal sale of agricultural land in Gujarat by India
gold Refinery to Alumina Refinery and permissions granted by the Revenue
Minister under influence of the secretary of the Chief Minister Narendra Modi, is
judicially noted by the honourable Supreme Court while deciding appeal filed by Dipak
Babaria, leader of opposite party in the State.
The judgment is delivered on 23rd January 2014.
Epilogue by the honourable SC is as under,
66. Before
we conclude, we may observe that India is essentially a land of villages.
Although, urbanization and industrialization is taking place, the industry has
not developed sufficiently, and large part of our population is still required
to depend on agriculture for sustenance. Lands are, therefore, required to be
retained for agricultural purposes. They are also required to be protected from
the damage of industrial pollution. Bonafide industrial activity may mean good
income to the entrepreneurs, but it should also result into good employment and
revenue to the State, causing least pollution and damage to the environment and
adjoining agriculturists. While granting the permission under Section 89A (5)
the Collector has to examine all these aspects. This is because the only other
exception for conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural purpose is
for those lands which are in an industrial zone. As far as the conversion of
lands otherwise than those in the industrial zone is concerned, all the aforesaid
precautions are required to be taken when a decision is to be arrived at as to
whether the application is for a bonafide industrial purpose. In the instant
case, there were newspaper reports of apprehensions and protest of the
adjoining farmers. The Revenue Secretary and the Chief Secretary had placed the
statutory provisions on record. It was expected of the Government and the
Revenue Minister to take cognizance of these apprehensions of the farmers as
well as the statutory provisions brought to her notice by the secretaries. She
has simply brushed aside the objections of the secretaries merely because the
Chief Minister’s secretary had written a letter, and because she was the
minister concerned. While over-ruling the opinion of secretaries to the concerned
department, the Minister was expected to give some reasons in support of the
view she was taking. No such reason has come on record in her file notings. She
has ignored that howsoever high you may be, the law is above you.
CIVIL APPEAL N. 836 OF 2014
(@ out of SPECIAL LEAVE
PETITION (CIVIL) NO.36738/2012)
VAKILSAHEB