The Gujarat High Court has refused to reopen a decades-old land dispute involving Reliance Industries Limited’s petroleum and petrochemicals Special Economic Zone in Jamnagar, ruling that a claim for restoration could not survive an unexplained delay of 33 years.
Justice Devan M Desai set aside an October 2008 order directing the State government to reconsider the restoration claim. The Court restored the effect of the Jamnagar Collector’s May 2006 decision rejecting the claim on grounds of delay.
The dispute centres on approximately nine acres of land in Navagam village, Jamnagar, originally allotted to Deva Sajan Rabari in June 1962 for agricultural purposes.
The government cancelled the allotment in December 1972 after finding that Rabari had neither taken possession of the land nor cultivated it within the prescribed two-year period.
It was only in 2005 that his legal heirs approached the authorities seeking restoration of the property. The Collector rejected their request in May 2006, citing the lengthy delay.
In the meantime, the Gujarat government had allotted the disputed land to Reliance Industries in April 2008 as part of a much larger land allocation covering around 10,000 acres for the development of its Jamnagar SEZ. Reliance paid the requisite consideration, took possession and began development activities.
The dispute resurfaced when the State’s Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), passed an order in October 2008 directing the authorities to reconsider the heirs’ claim. Reliance’s request to participate in those proceedings was also rejected, prompting the company to approach the High Court.
Reliance argued that allowing a restoration claim after several decades would undermine rights lawfully created in its favour through the subsequent allotment.
The legal heirs, on the other hand, maintained that the original cancellation had taken place without giving their predecessor an opportunity to be heard. They also argued that Reliance’s allotment was affected by the pending dispute.
The High Court found little merit in these objections.
It noted that there was no evidence to establish that Rabari had ever taken possession of the land or cultivated it. The original allottee had also failed to challenge the cancellation during his lifetime.
The explanation that he remained unaware of the cancellation for nearly three decades did not satisfy the Court. The prolonged inaction, it held, could not be brushed aside when considering a request to restore the land.
The Court further observed that the special secretary had failed to properly account for the 33-year delay and had relied on an unsupported assertion that the land continued to be cultivated.
It also rejected the contention that the existence of litigation automatically undermined Reliance’s allotment. The Court took note of the fact that the civil suit filed by the legal heirs had been dismissed for default in 2010.
Finding the 2008 order unsustainable, the High Court quashed it and upheld the Collector’s decision refusing restoration of the land.
The ruling brings the long-running dispute to a close at this stage, leaving Reliance’s allotment undisturbed by the restoration claim.