Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 997 (GUJ)

Shriram Cement Ltd. v. State of Gujarat

2017-05-05

B.M.TRIVEDI

body2017
JUDGMENT : B.M. Trivedi, J. 1. Both the petitions being in respect of the same subject land, were heard together with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, and therefore, are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner - M/s. Shriram Cement Limited of Special Civil Application No. 3693 of 2013 has filed the petition, challenging the communication dated 6.12.2012 (Annexure-A) addressed by the respondent No. 4 - Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation (GMDC), calling upon the petitioner to deposit the premium amount of Rs. 41.95 crore, and the order dated 13.7.2006 passed by the Collector, Banaskantha, calling upon the respondent No. 4 GMDC, to deposit the premium amount of Rs. 4,79,83,108/- in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 47 admeasuring 39 acres situated at Village Hadad, Taluka Danta, District Banaskantha. The petitioner has also sought declaration to the effect that the respondents have no authority to impose any condition or charge any premium in respect of the land in question and has sought direction for restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in question. 3. Special Civil Application No. 2698 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner-State Bank of India for restraining M/s. Shriram Cement Limited (petitioner of the SCA No. 3693 of 2013) from transferring the land in question to any third party and seeking direction against the respondent No. 1 State of Gujarat to mutate the name of the petitioner Bank in the revenue record as the mortgagee. The petitioner Bank has also sought direction against the respondent No. 3 - GMDC, to hand over the title documents of the land in question to the petitioner Bank. 4. The short facts of SCA No. 3693 of 2013 as stated by the petitioner-M/s. Shriram Cement Limited are that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions contained in the Indian Companies Act. The subject land situated at Village Hadad was originally allotted to one Shri Suryakant Nanalal Gandhi by the Collector, Banaskantha, on permanent basis on the allottee making payment of Rs. 46,800/- as per the order dated 14.4.1981 (Annexure-1 to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No. 4). The said sale was subject to certain conditions as mentioned in the said order. An Entry being No. 609 was also mutated in the revenue record in favour of the said Shri Suryakant Nanalal Gandhi on 22.6.1981 (Annexure-B). 46,800/- as per the order dated 14.4.1981 (Annexure-1 to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No. 4). The said sale was subject to certain conditions as mentioned in the said order. An Entry being No. 609 was also mutated in the revenue record in favour of the said Shri Suryakant Nanalal Gandhi on 22.6.1981 (Annexure-B). The said Suryakant N. Gandhi had also executed a Kabulatnama dated 22.4.1981 as required. It appears that thereafter the said Shri Suryakant Nanalal Gandhi having sought permission to transfer the said land in the name of M/s. Shriram Cement Limited (Old), the said permission was granted by the revenue department vide the letter dated 16.6.1982 (Annexure-D). The transfer deed was also executed by the said Shri Suryakant Nanalal Gandhi in favour of the said M/s. Shriram Cement Limited (Old) and an Entry was also made in the revenue record in favour of the said Company on 11.1.1983. It is further case of the petitioner that the said M/s. Shriram Cement Limited (Old) could not carry on the business profitably and became a sick Company, and therefore, the said Company approached the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short "BIFR") under the provisions contained in the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. After the inquiry made by the BIFR, it was found viable to revive the said Company, and therefore, the said Company was ordered to be merged with the respondent No. 4 GMDC, with retrospective effect from 1.4.1992 as per the revival scheme. The order passed by the BIFR in the said proceedings is at Annexure-F. The Collector vide the order dated 28.10.2002 (Annexure-H) granted the permission to transfer the land of M/s. Shriram Cement Limited (Old) in favour of GMDC, subject to the conditions mentioned therein. One of the conditions was that the land in question shall be unalienable and of new tenure, however, it was clarified that no amount of premium was to be recovered from the GMDC. 5. It further appears that the respondent No. 4 GMDC, also could not run the business profitably and incurred heavy losses, and therefore, the GMDC, proposed to sell the assets of the said merged Company through auction. 5. It further appears that the respondent No. 4 GMDC, also could not run the business profitably and incurred heavy losses, and therefore, the GMDC, proposed to sell the assets of the said merged Company through auction. The petitioner Company, which was incorporated on 27.4.2000 with the same name "M/s. Shriram Cement Limited" offered to purchase the said Company from GMDC, at a price higher than the highest bid received by the GMDC in the auction. GMDC, therefore, entered into an agreement dated 30.5.2000 (Annexure-G) to sell the said cement factory to the present petitioner. One of the conditions mentioned in the agreement was that the cost of stamp duty, registration fees, premium and statutory expenses shall be borne by the petitioner Company. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner had paid Rs. 1,75,00,000/- towards total consideration for land, buildings, and all movable and immovable assets, bifurcating the said amount under two heads i.e. Rs. 10,53,000/- against the land and buildings as per the book value of GMDC and Rs. 1,64,47,000/- towards the cost of movable and immovable assets. Pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner had paid Rs. 1,45,00,000/- immediately to the GMDC, and the petitioner was put in possession of the said cement factory on 1.6.2000. According to the petitioner, the petitioner also paid Rs. 3,96,623.64 towards the electricity dues on 1.6.2000 and Rs. 1,10,990/- towards the licence fees on 11.7.2000 and also spent Rs. 8 crore for running the factory. As per the case of the petitioner, as on the date there are 150 workers and labourers working in the said factory. 6. It further appears that the GMDC vide the letter dated 21.1.2003 had sought permission of the Collector to transfer the land to the petitioner Company. In response thereto, the Collector, Banaskantha vide the communication dated 13.7.2006 directed the GMDC, to give consent to make payment of the premium amount of Rs. 4,79,83,108/- as fixed by the District Evaluation Committee (Annexure-N). Since as per the agreement the petitioner was required to pay the amount of premium, the petitioner made representations to the Collector and the GMDC, to reconsider the case for payment of premium. However, the respondent Corporation directed the petitioner to pay the said amount of premium of Rs. 4,79,00,000/- vide the letter dated 6.8.2007 (Annexure-L). Since as per the agreement the petitioner was required to pay the amount of premium, the petitioner made representations to the Collector and the GMDC, to reconsider the case for payment of premium. However, the respondent Corporation directed the petitioner to pay the said amount of premium of Rs. 4,79,00,000/- vide the letter dated 6.8.2007 (Annexure-L). It was stated that if the said amount was not deposited within seven days and the sale deed was not got executed, then the entire amount of Banakath shall be forfeited. The petitioner, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No. 23329 of 2007 challenging the said action of the GMDC and the Collector, however the said petition came to be withdrawn, as the Court directed the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy (Annexure-M). The petitioner thereafter filed a Revision Application being No. 69/2007 before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Ahmedabad, who vide the order dated 3.5.2008 partly allowed the said Revision Application, by setting aside the order dated 13.7.2006 passed by the Collector, and remanded the matter to the Collector for reconsideration of the premium amount (Annexure-O). 7. It further appears that since the Collector had asked the GMDC, to make payment of premium, and in turn, the GMDC, had issued the notice to the petitioner to make payment of the said amount or to terminate the Banakath and since the matter was pending under consideration before the Collector, the GMDC, vide the letter dated 16.12.2009 agreed to revive the Banakath dated 30.5.2000 on the condition that the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee for the premium amount of Rs. 4,79,83,108/-. Accordingly, the petitioner had furnished the bank guarantee in favour of the GMDC, on 28.8.2010. It appears that the petitioner had challenged the said order dated 3.5.2008 passed by the SSRD by way of filing SCA No. 18167 of 2011. Pending the said petition, again the petitioner was called upon by the respondent GMDC to make exorbitant amount of premium to the tune of Rs. 41,95,00,000/- as per the letter dated 6.12.2012 (Annexure-A). The petitioner, therefore, had withdrawn the said petition being SCA No. 18167 of 2011 with liberty to file fresh petition to challenge the said demand made in the said letter. Accordingly, the present petition has been filed. 8. 41,95,00,000/- as per the letter dated 6.12.2012 (Annexure-A). The petitioner, therefore, had withdrawn the said petition being SCA No. 18167 of 2011 with liberty to file fresh petition to challenge the said demand made in the said letter. Accordingly, the present petition has been filed. 8. The respondent No. 1 has resisted the petition by filing the affidavit-in-reply mainly contending inter-alia that the GMDC, having agreed to sell the land in question to the present petitioner, was liable to pay the premium in view of the Government Resolutions dated 28.3.1989 and 6.6.2003 (Annexure-R/I colly). It is further contended that as per the Government Resolutions dated 22.11.2004 and 6.5.2006 issued by the Revenue Department, after the lapse of two years of the decision of the District Evaluation Committee, the price of the land is required to be recalculated and accordingly, the District Evaluation Committee had fixed the price of the land, which the GMDC was liable to pay for transferring the land in favour of the petitioner. 9. The respondent No. 1 has filed additional affidavit stating inter-alia that the decision contained in the communication dated 13.7.2006 of the Collector fixing the premium amount at Rs. 4,79,83,000/- having been challenged by the petitioner Company before the SSRD, the said communication was set aside by the SSRD as per the order dated 25.4.2008 (Annexure-R/6) and that the matter was remanded to the Collector for deciding it afresh. Pursuant to the said order, the Collector had sent a communication to the Government in Revenue Department intimating that the amount of premium was calculated at Rs. 16,31,94,152/- on the basis of the decision taken by the District Evaluation Committee (Annexure-R/8). In response to the said communication dated 29.7.2010, the Revenue Department had again addressed a communication dated 9.5.2011 requesting the Collector to fix the price of the land in view of the new policy dated 26.4.2011 framed by the Government (Annexure-R/9) In view of the said correspondence, the District Evaluation Committee in its meeting held on 17.9.2011 fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 1,670/- per sq. mtr. and communicated the Collector accordingly vide the letter dated 27.9.2011 (Annexure-R/11). It has been further stated that thereafter the State Level Evaluation Committee in its meeting held on 2.4.2012 fixed the price of the land at Rs. 2,660/- per sq. mtr. 10. 1,670/- per sq. mtr. and communicated the Collector accordingly vide the letter dated 27.9.2011 (Annexure-R/11). It has been further stated that thereafter the State Level Evaluation Committee in its meeting held on 2.4.2012 fixed the price of the land at Rs. 2,660/- per sq. mtr. 10. The respondent No. 4 has also filed the affidavit-in-reply contending inter-alia that the order dated 13.7.2006 passed by the Collector having already been set aside by the SSRD vide the order dated 24.4.2008, the petitioner could not have challenged the said order of the Collector in the present petition. It is further contended that after the remand of the matter by the SSRD to the Collector, the land premium was fixed by the Collector at Rs. 41,98,35,780/- and therefore, the respondent Corporation had asked the petitioner Company to make payment of the said premium amount for supplementing the execution of the sale deed by way of the impugned letter dated 6.12.2012. 11. At this juncture, it is required to be mentioned that despite the contention having been taken by the respondent No. 4 that the Collector had decided the premium amount at Rs. 41,98,35,780/-, no such order of Collector was produced either by the respondent No. 4 or by any other respondents. The Court, therefore, vide the order dated 22.6.2016 had passed specific order directing the learned Advocates for the parties to place on record the said order of the Collector. However, none of the parties had produced the same. As a result thereof, there is no order of the Collector produced on record deciding the premium at Rs. 41,98,35,780/- which amount the respondent No. 4 Corporation had called upon the petitioner to pay as per the communication dated 6.12.2012 (Annexure-A). 12. The learned Sr. Advocate Mr. S.N. Shelat appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. As a result thereof, there is no order of the Collector produced on record deciding the premium at Rs. 41,98,35,780/- which amount the respondent No. 4 Corporation had called upon the petitioner to pay as per the communication dated 6.12.2012 (Annexure-A). 12. The learned Sr. Advocate Mr. S.N. Shelat appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. G.M. Amin for the petitioner taking the Court to the various documents, more particularly the documents pertaining to the original allotment of the land by the Government to Shri Suryakant N. Gandhi, the document permitting the said Suryakant N. Gandhi to transfer the land in favour of Sriram Cement Limited (old), the order of BIFR permitting merger of M/s. Sriram Cement Limited (old) to GMDC and the Banakath executed by the GMDC in favour of the petitioner, submitted that at none of the occasions of transfers, the Government had charged any premium, after the land was sold out by the Government to the said Shri Suryakant Gandhi on permanent basis. He further submitted that the petitioner had entered into an agreement to purchase the cement factory from GMDC in public auction and the price having been fixed at that time, the GMDC could not have called upon the petitioner to make payment of premium allegedly demanded by the respondent Collector. According to Mr. Amin, the GMDC had threatened the petitioner to cancel the agreement, if the said amount of premium was not paid by the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner had the right to approach the Court by way of present petition. Relying upon the various decisions of Supreme Court and more particularly in case of State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Jintendra Kumar Srivastava and Another, (2013) 12 SCC 210 he submitted that the Government Resolutions relied upon by the respondents for charging premium being executive instructions could not be said to be the "law" and that neither the Bombay Tenancy Act, nor the Gujarat Lands Revenue Code authorizes the Collector to charge premium on the land, which was already sold out to the original allottee Suryakant Gandhi for being used as a non-agricultural land on permanent basis. He further submitted that the petitioner had challenged the action of the respondent authority in charging the premium to the tune of Rs. He further submitted that the petitioner had challenged the action of the respondent authority in charging the premium to the tune of Rs. 4,74,83,108/- before the SSRD, and the SSRD having allowed the Revision Application of the petitioner had remanded the matter to the Collector for reconsideration, however, the Collector appears to have fixed the premium to the tune of Rs. 41.95 crore, relying upon the valuation made by the State level Valuation Committee, without any authority of law and without giving the opportunity of hearing and in utter disregard of the order passed by the SSRD. 13. However, the learned AGP Mr. Venugopal Patel, challenging the very locus standi of the petitioner to file the petition, submitted that the order of Collector calling upon the GMDC to make payment of premium could not have been challenged by the petitioner by filing the present petition. He further submitted that the communication dated 6.12.2012 issued by the GMDC to the petitioner (Annexure-A) being in connection with the agreement executed between them, the dispute was contractual in nature between the said parties and the Government authorities were unnecessarily dragged into the litigation. According to him, the Court also should not interfere in the contractual dispute between the petitioner and the GMDC, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Placing heavy reliance on the Government Resolutions dated 28.3.1989 and 6.6.2003 he submitted that the premium was liable to be recovered at the time of grant of land to the original grantee as well as at the time of subsequent transfers in favour of the subsequent transferees. Further, relying upon the Government Resolutions dated 22.11.2004 and 6.5.2006 he submitted that the price decided by the District Evaluation Committee would be valid only for two years and after the lapse of two years, the price/premium is required to be reconsidered afresh and accordingly, the Collector had called upon the GMDC and GMDC in turn, had called upon the petitioner to make payment of premium to the tune of Rs. 41.95 crore, which action could not be said to be an arbitrary action. 14. Mr. Varun K. Patel, learned Advocate for the respondent GMDC has supported the stand taken by the learned AGP and adopted the arguments made by him. 15. So far as the Special Civil Application No. 2698 of 2016 is concerned, the learned Advocate Ms. 41.95 crore, which action could not be said to be an arbitrary action. 14. Mr. Varun K. Patel, learned Advocate for the respondent GMDC has supported the stand taken by the learned AGP and adopted the arguments made by him. 15. So far as the Special Civil Application No. 2698 of 2016 is concerned, the learned Advocate Ms. Dharmishta Rawal for the petitioner Bank had sought to submit that the petitioner Bank had sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 27 crore in favour of the Sriram Cement Limited and that a loan agreement was also entered into between the petitioner Bank and the said Company. According to her, the said Company defaulted in adhering to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, and because of the disputes between the said Company and the GMDC, the petitioner Bank is put to loss. 16. At the outset, it may be stated that the petitioner by way of the present petition has prayed to quash and set aside the communication dated 6.12.2012 issued by the respondent No. 4 Corporation (Annexure-A), calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 41.95 crore supplementing the execution of the sale deed (Annexure-A) and the order dated 13.7.2006 passed by the Collector fixing the premium amount at Rs. 4,79,83,108/- to be paid by the GMDC to the Collector in respect of the permission sought by the GMDC to sell the land to the petitioner, however, the said order dated 13.7.2006 of the Collector was already set aside by the SSRD as per the order dated 25.4.2008 (Annexure-R/6). Hence, as rightly submitted by the learned AGP, Mr. Venugopal Patel, the said order dated 13.7.2006 could not have been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. So far as the communication dated 6.12.2012 issued by the respondent No. 4 Corporation at Annexure- A is concerned, it may be noted that despite the specific order passed by the Court on 22.6.2016 none of the learned Advocates for the parties has placed on record the order of the Collector fixing the premium at Rs. 41,98,35,780/-, which was made the basis of the communication dated 6.12.2012 sent by the respondent No. 4 GMDC to the petitioner. 17. 41,98,35,780/-, which was made the basis of the communication dated 6.12.2012 sent by the respondent No. 4 GMDC to the petitioner. 17. Be that as it may, it transpires from the additional affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No. 1 that the respondent Collector had after the remand of the case by the SSRD, fixed the premium amount at Rs. 16,31,94,152/- on the basis of the evaluation made by the District Evaluation Committee and communicated the said decision to the Government in Revenue Department as per the letter dated 29.7.2010 (Annexure-R/8). The Government in Revenue Department, however, directed the Collector vide the letter dated 9.5.2011 to decide the price of the land on the basis of the new policy framed by the Government under the Government Resolution dated 26.4.2011. The Collector, therefore, appears to have referred the matter to the District Elevation Committee and the said Committee had fixed the market value of the said land at Rs. 1,670/- per sq. mtr. in its meeting held on 17.9.2011, and communicated the same to the Collector vide the letter dated 27.9.2011. The Collector in turn, vide the letter dated 1.10.2011 (Annexure-R/12) informed the said decision of the District Evaluation Committee to the Joint Secretary, Revenue Department. It appears that thereafter the State Level Evaluation Committee had decided the price of the land to be Rs. 2,660/- per sq. mtr., which proceedings are on record at Annexure-R/13. Hence, on the basis of the said correspondence and decisions taken at the Revenue Department, the Collector appears to have called upon the GMDC to make payment of premium at Rs. 41.95 crore, which in turn has been demanded by the GMDC from the petitioner. Under the circumstances, it clearly transpires that neither the petitioner, nor the GMDC was given any opportunity of hearing by the Collector or by the Government in Revenue Department while fixing the price of the land and the amount of premium in respect of the land in question, and therefore, such decision fixing the premium at Rs. 41.95 crore by the Collector was in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. It is pertinent to note that the SSRD while setting aside the earlier order of the Collector dated 13.7.2006 had specifically directed the Collector to decide the amount of premium after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Company. 41.95 crore by the Collector was in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. It is pertinent to note that the SSRD while setting aside the earlier order of the Collector dated 13.7.2006 had specifically directed the Collector to decide the amount of premium after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Company. The Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the said decision of the Collector and the communication dated 6.12.2012 of the respondent No. 4 Corporation issued on the basis of such decision taken by the Collector deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice alone. 18. So far as other issues raised by the learned Advocate Mr. Amin for the petitioner are concerned, it appears that there are certain undisputed facts. It is not disputed that the subject land was originally allotted by the Government to Shri Suryakant Nanalal Gandhi on permanent basis on 14.4.1981 subject to certain conditions mentioned therein and on making payment of Rs. 43,800/-. It is also not disputed that the said Shri Suryakant Nanalal Gandhi had requested the Collector to grant the permission to transfer the said land in favour of M/s. Shriram Cement Limited (old) and the said request was acceded to by the Government as per the letter dated 16.9.1982 without charging any premium. The said Shri Suryakant Nanalal Gandhi, therefore, executed a deed of transfer in favour of M/s. Shriram Cement Limited (old) on 5.11.1982. The necessary entry in the Village Form No. 6 in that regard was also made on 11.1.1983. The Collector also allowed the land to be mortgaged with the financial institution against the loan of Rs. 430 lac as per the order dated 16.2.1984, in respect of which necessary entry was made in the Village Form No. 6 on 25.2.1984. It is also not disputed that the said M/s. Shriram Cement Limited (old) could not run the business profitably and became a sick industrial company, and therefore, in the proceedings before the BIFR under the provisions contained in the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, a revival scheme was sanctioned and the said company was ordered to be merged with GMDC with retrospective effect from 1.4.1992. It is also not disputed that the GMDC also could not run the business profitably, and therefore, it proposed to sell the assets of the merged company by way of auction. The petitioner Company having been incorporated on 27.4.2000 with the same name i.e. M/s. Shriram Cement Limited, offered to purchase the said company from the GMDC. The GMDC and the petitioner company entered into an agreement to sell the said cement factory to the petitioner on 30.5.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner paid substantial amount to the GMDC and also spent huge amount for running the factory as stated herein above. One of the conditions in the agreement was that the petitioner Company was liable to bear the expenses of stamp duty, registration fees, premium and other legal and statutory expenses. 19. The issue of premium appears to have arisen as the GMDC had sought permission of the Collector to transfer the land in question to the petitioner Company, and as the Collector directed the GMDC to give consent to make the payment of the premium amount, which at the relevant point of time was quantified at Rs. 4,79,83,108/-. The GMDC, in turn, having made the demand from the petitioner to make the payment of the said premium amount, the petitioner had challenged the said order passed by the Collector by filing Special Civil Application No. 23329 of 2007. However, the Court refused to entertain the said petition on the ground of existence of alternative remedy. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Revision Application before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department. It is also not disputed that the Secretary, Revenue Department set aside the said order dated 13.7.2006 passed by the Collector and remanded the matter to the Collector for reconsideration of the premium amount. After the remand, the Collector appears to have fixed the amount of premium to the tune of Rs. 41.95 crore and called upon the GMDC to make payment who, in turn, called upon the petitioner to make payment of the said amount as per the letter dated 6.12.2012. As stated herein above, despite the order passed by the Court, the order of Collector fixing the premium at Rs. 41.95 crore has not been placed on record and therefore it is difficult to ascertain as to on what basis the said premium was fixed. As stated herein above, despite the order passed by the Court, the order of Collector fixing the premium at Rs. 41.95 crore has not been placed on record and therefore it is difficult to ascertain as to on what basis the said premium was fixed. From certain correspondence produced by the respondent No. 1, it appears that after the valuation done by the Collector, the matter had travelled to the State Government, where the valuation was got done through the State level Valuation Committee, on the basis of which the premium to the tune of Rs. 41.95 was fixed and sought to be recovered by the Collector. Under the circumstances, the question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner is liable to make payment of premium as demanded by the respondent Corporation and the respondent Collector. 20. Though the learned AGP had raised the preliminary objection as regards the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the order of the Collector fixing the amount of premium, the Court does not find any substance in the same. There being an agreement between the GMDC and the petitioner Company to the effect that the amount of stamp duty, registration fees, premium and other legal charges shall be borne by the petitioner Company, it is the petitioner who would be affected by the order of the Collector calling upon the GMDC to make payment of premium. The petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved party would have locus standi to file the present petition challenging the order of the Collector. 21. The Court also cannot accept the submission of the learned AGP that the dispute between the GMDC and the petitioner being, contractual in nature, the Court should not interfere with the same, exercising the jurisdiction under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such it is the action of the respondent Collector in charging premium on the transfer of land by GMDC to the petitioner, which is under challenge in the petition and no contractual dispute between the petitioner and the GMDC is being adjudicated upon. The condition mentioned in the agreement requiring the petitioner to make payment of premium and other legal charges is not disputed. The dispute is with regard to the power and authority of the Collector to charge the premium. 22. The condition mentioned in the agreement requiring the petitioner to make payment of premium and other legal charges is not disputed. The dispute is with regard to the power and authority of the Collector to charge the premium. 22. So far as the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code are concerned, the learned AGP has failed to point out any provision, which would empower or authorize the Collector to charge the premium on the transfer of non-agricultural land, which is being used for industrial purpose. Undisputedly, the land was allotted to the original allottee Shri Suryakant Nanalal Gandhi on permanent basis after charging occupancy price as mentioned in the order dated 14.4.1981 and thereafter the said land was permitted to be transferred in favour of M/s. Shriram Cement Limited (old) to be used for industrial purpose and then the said Company was permitted to be merged into the GMDC by virtue of the order of BIFR and that at no point of time, the Collector had called upon any party to pay the premium amount. It is for the first time such a demand is made when the GMDC has agreed to sell the said land to the petitioner. Heavy reliance has been placed by the learned AGP on the Government Resolutions dated 28.3.1989 and 6.6.2003 to submit that the Collector had the authority to charge the premium at the time of granting the land to the original allottee as well as at the time of subsequent transfers in favour of the subsequent transferees, the Court cannot accept the said submission. There is no explanation coming forth from the learned AGP as to why the said Government Resolutions were not made applicable when earlier the said land was sought to be transferred twice. In the opinion of the Court, such Government Resolutions which are in the nature of executive instructions, not supported by any legal provision could not be treated as the "law" in view of the ratio of judgment laid down by the Supreme Court in case of State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Jintendra Kumar Srivastava and Another (supra). In the opinion of the Court, such Government Resolutions which are in the nature of executive instructions, not supported by any legal provision could not be treated as the "law" in view of the ratio of judgment laid down by the Supreme Court in case of State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Jintendra Kumar Srivastava and Another (supra). From the bare reading of the said Government Resolutions dated 28.3.1989 and 6.6.2003, which as such are the compilation of all the earlier Government Resolutions, it appears that the said Government Resolutions were issued with regard to the guidelines to be followed, when the waste land of the Government is to be allotted for non-agricultural purpose. In the instant case, the Government had already allotted the land on permanent basis to Shri Suryakant Nanalal Gandhi after charging the occupancy price way back in the year 1981 and thereafter no premium was charged on the said land though it had changed hands from time to time for being used for industrial purpose. Now when the entire cement factory with the land is being sold out by the GMDC to the present petitioner, it could not be said that the waste land of the Government was being sold out to the petitioner, entitling the Collector to charge the premium under the said Government Resolutions. 23. It is true that the Collector had granted the land to the original allottee Shri Suryakant Nanalal Gandhi for establishing mini cement plant subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the order dated 14.4.1981. It is also true that on the merger of M/s. Shriram Cement Limited (old) with GMDC, the Collector while granting permission to the GMDC to purchase the said land from the said Company, had imposed a condition that the said land would be treated as new and impartible tenure land, and that the said order has remained unchallenged. However, in the opinion of the Court, by virtue of said condition, the GMDC was required to take permission of the Collector at the time of selling the land to any third party, but the said condition itself did not empower the Collector to charge premium when the GMDC is selling the land to the petitioner, more particularly when earlier at no point of time any such premium was charged. 24. 24. In that view of the matter, the decision, if any of the Collector fixing the premium without hearing the petitioner and the GMDC, and the communication dated 6.12.2012 of the respondent GMDC (Annexure-A) calling upon the petitioner to deposit the land premium amount of Rs. 41.95 crore supplementing the execution of the sale deed deserve to be quashed and set aside. The Collector is required to be directed to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made by the Court herein above, and after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondent Corporation, in respect of the permission sought by the respondent Corporation to sell the land in question to the petitioner. The petition being SCA No. 3693 of 2013 deserves to be allowed to the said extent. 25. So far as the other petition being SCA No. 2698 of 2016 is concerned, it appears that the M/s. Shriram Cement Limited had defaulted in making repayment of the loan taken from the petitioner Bank. In the opinion of the Court, it is always open for the petitioner Bank to take appropriate action against the defaulter Company as may be permissible under the law. If the name of the petitioner Bank is not being entered in the revenue record, in that case also the petitioner Bank has the alternative remedy available under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and the Rules made thereunder. In that view of the matter, no such direction as prayed for by the petitioner Bank could be granted. Hence, the Special Civil Application No. 2698 of 2016 is dismissed. Rule is discharged. 26. Special Civil Application No. 3693 of 2013 is partly allowed to the extent that the communication dated 6.12.2012 addressed to the petitioner by the respondent Corporation (Annexure-A) is quashed and set aside. The respondent Collector is directed to decide the matter in respect of the permission sought by the respondent Corporation to sell the land to the petitioner, afresh and in accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent Corporation. The Rule is made absolute to the said extent.