Court quashes Revenue Department's order remanding matter for fresh decision, emphasizing strict adherence to Bombay Land Revenue Code and government policies on delayed re-grants amid SEZ land allotment
In a significant judgment dated October 14, 2026, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Mr. Devan M. Desai, J., upheld the rejection of a re-grant application for a parcel of land originally allotted in 1962 but cancelled in 1972 due to breach of cultivation conditions. The case involved Reliance Industries Limited as the petitioner and the State of Gujarat along with others as respondents.
The dispute centered on a 9-acre land parcel in Village Navagam, Taluka Lalpur, District Jamnagar. The land was initially granted for cultivation to the predecessor-in-title of respondent No. 3 but was cancelled after the allottee failed to take possession and cultivate the land within two years, as required by the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. More than three decades later, in 2005, the heirs sought re-grant of the land, which by then had been allotted to Reliance Industries Limited in 2008 for developing a Special Economic Zone (SEZ).
The Collector of Jamnagar had rejected the re-grant application citing gross and unexplained delay of 33 years and laches, holding that the cancellation order had attained finality due to the absence of any challenge from the original allottee during his lifetime. The Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (SSRD), however, overturned this decision in 2008, remanding the matter for fresh consideration and rejecting Reliance's impleadment application. The SSRD relied on an earlier Government Resolution dated March 16, 1982, which allowed re-grants under certain conditions.
Reliance Industries challenged the SSRD's order before the High Court. The Court found that SSRD's reliance on the 1982 Resolution was misplaced since a later Government Resolution dated January 3, 1984, clearly established that delayed requests for re-grant after long periods, especially where the land's value had increased and non-agricultural potential had risen, should not be entertained. The Court held that the SSRD ignored this crucial policy and failed to appreciate the creation of third-party rights in favor of Reliance, who had already been allotted the land and had commenced commercial activities.
Further, the Court observed that the respondent failed to produce any evidence proving that possession and cultivation conditions were fulfilled within the stipulated period by the original allottee. The mere assertion without evidence was insufficient to sustain the claim for re-grant. The Court also dismissed arguments based on pending litigation at the time of Reliance's allotment, noting that no prohibitory orders or injunctions operated against the State, and that the civil suit filed by respondent No. 3 was dismissed for default.
The judgment reaffirmed the principle that unexplained and prolonged delays in claiming land rights are fatal to such claims, especially where the land has vested back to the State and been lawfully allotted to third parties. The Court quashed the SSRD's order and restored the Collector's original order rejecting the re-grant application.
This ruling clarifies the legal stance on land re-grants under the Bombay Land Revenue Code in Gujarat, emphasizing the importance of timely action by claimants and the protection of bona fide third-party interests such as SEZ developers.
Bottom Line:
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Re-grant of land - Application made after 33 years from cancellation of grant - Such gross and unexplained delay is fatal - Where in the meantime land stood vested in Government and was allotted to a third party for SEZ and possession was handed over, SSRD erred in remanding matter for fresh consideration and in ignoring subsequent Government policy that delayed re-grant requests should not be accepted.
Statutory provision(s):
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 Section 211, Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 226, 227
