Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1559 (GUJ)

Sajan Rice And Pulse Mill v. Union Of India

2024-07-15

PRANAV TRIVEDI, SUNITA AGARWAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) 1. The instant petition has been filed by a group of petitioners, which are industrial units carrying on business on various plots allotted by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC). The plots allotted to the petitioners in GIDC Estate at Dabhoi are adjacent to the narrow gauge Miyagam Karjan-Dabhoi-Samalaya railway line. 2. The prayers made in the Writ petition are to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take possession of Plot Nos. 4, 24, 35/B, 50, 36, 49, 37 at Dabhoi GIDC Estate in Vadodara (allotted to the petitioners herein) for the purpose of conversion of the above railway line from narrow gauge to broad gauge. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed not to acquire the aforesaid plots without treating the petitioners as persons interested in such lands. A further prayer is to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the Corrigendum Order dated 17.05.2023 issued by the respondent GIDC has also been sought. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners are lawful allottees of the industrial plots in the industrial estate and the allotments have been made on various dates starting from the year 1981 onwards. The lease deeds have been registered. With GIDC vide Corrigendum Order dated 17.05.2023, the GIDC has intimated the petitioners that their plot size would be reduced, inasmuch as, a portion of their plots are required for the project of Railways for conversion of narrow gauge to broad gauge of Miyagam Karjan-Dabhoi- Samalaya railway line. 4. The submission is that the petitioners have invested their savings in such plots allotted and have arranged their business, made investments and earned goodwill on the lands of the area leased to the petitioners. The leases in favour of the petitioners are permanent leases for 99 years and the petitioners have been given an option to purchase the lease lands as the GIDC has a policy for converting the lease hold rights to absolute ownership. It is, thus, not open for the GIDC to terminate the leases before completion of the lease period as the petitioners have never violated any terms and conditions of the lease deeds and have paid entire consideration for execution of the lease deeds. It is, thus, not open for the GIDC to terminate the leases before completion of the lease period as the petitioners have never violated any terms and conditions of the lease deeds and have paid entire consideration for execution of the lease deeds. The reduction in the plot area results in unilateral amendment to the concluded contracts and results in termination of the lease to the extent of the area sought to be deducted. 5. It was argued by Ms.Megha Jani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners that such an action of GIDC is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, high-handed and impermissible. The GIDC while executing the lease deed is a 'lessor' and under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it is not open for the lessor to modify the terms and conditions of the lease deed by reducing the land area, unilaterally. Admittedly, no proceedings for acquisition of the lands required for the project of Railways has been carried out under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short as "the Act' 2013") or under the Railways Act, 1989. It was urged that in the event the land in question is acquired under any of the statutory land acquisition provisions, the petitioners have a statutory right to be considered as persons interested in the acquired land to claim for fair compensation, and to further challenge the determination of compensation and even acquisition, if any. 6. The respondent State Authorities specifically the office of the Collector, Vadodara and GIDC are acting in an absolute highhanded manner, misusing their authority in a bid to evict the petitioners from the portion of the plots given to them on lease of 99 years. 6. The respondent State Authorities specifically the office of the Collector, Vadodara and GIDC are acting in an absolute highhanded manner, misusing their authority in a bid to evict the petitioners from the portion of the plots given to them on lease of 99 years. A copy of one of such lease deed appended at page 20' of the paper book has been placed before us to demonstrate that as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed, in consideration of the amount (indicated therein) paid by the lessee to the lessor as full payment of premium price of the plot and in consideration of the rent reserved in the lease deed, the industrial plots, together with all rights, privileges, easements, advantages and appurtenances whatsoever thereto belonging except and reserving upto the lessor all mines and minerals in and under the land, the lessee has been held entitled to hold the land (referred to as "the demised premises") for the term of 99 years computed from the date of execution of the lease deed. It also contains a condition that if the lessee duly performs and observes the covenants and conditions on the part of the lessee, contained in the lease deed, and at the end of the period of 99 years, if the lessee has given three months' previous notice in writing to the lessor of his desire to have the lease renewed for a further period of 99 years, the lessor shall and will at the cost and expenses in every respect of the lessee, grant to the lessee a further lease of the demised premises for a further term of 99 years with the same covenants and provisions and stipulations, terms and conditions except the clause of renewal and except to the amount of rent, which the lessor shall be entitled to increase by 100% as stipulated therein. 7. On a bare reading of this clause of the lease deed, it is evident that the initial period of lease of 99 years is renewable on an application moved by the lessee and the lessor would be required to renew the lease for a further period of 99 years, in case the lessee had observed the covenants and conditions on his part as laid down in the lease deed, subject to the conditions put by the lessor in the matter of renewal or the amount of rent. It is, thus, clear that the lessee has a subsisting right to seek renewal at the expiry of initial period of 99 years. 8. The clause pertaining to breach of covenants has also been placed before us to assert that even in case of breach of condition, termination of lease and the power of re-entry shall have to be exercised after giving notice in writing to the lessee intimating the intention of the lessor to enter end of the specific breach or breaches of covenants in respect of the which the re-entry is intended to be made. An opportunity is also to be granted to the lessee to remedy such breach or prejudice within three months after the notice intimating the default has been given. 9. It was, thus, argued that all the petitioners who are lessees of the industrial plots allotted by the GIDC have subsisting rights in the plots in question and they cannot be evicted of even a portion of the plots leased out to them during subsistence of the lease. 10. It is stated in the Writ petition that initially, on 01.09.2021, the petitioners were served with a communication of the Regional Manager, GIDC, Vadodara asking them to remain present for inspection of the lands to be carried out on 01.09.2021 for the purported railway acquisition project. There is a reference in the said communication to the necessary proceedings for land acquisition held by the State Government and that the Rojkam in the presence of land acquisition officer and other officers was to be executed, but neither the copy of the acquisition notifications were annexed along with the said communication nor the petitioners were ever intimated about the land acquisition proceedings undertaken pertaining the lands in question. However, the Rojkam was prepared by the concerned officials which indicates the area affected on execution of the Railway's project. 11. It is also brought on record that on 09.09.2021, the Assistant Collector, Dabhoi addressed a communication to the Manager, GIDC, Vadodara requesting for details of the plot holders of the lands and also directed the GIDC to obtain and communicate objections/representations, if any, from the plot holders within a period of two days. The petitioners raised objections vide communications dated 15.09.2021 and 16.09.2021 addressed to the Regional Manager, GIDC. 12. The petitioners raised objections vide communications dated 15.09.2021 and 16.09.2021 addressed to the Regional Manager, GIDC. 12. It seems that a clarificatory Circular dated 02.08.2021 had been issued by the GIDC directing the plot holders to share 50% of the compensation, in case of acquisition of the lease lands. There has been exchange of communications between the GIDC and the petitioners herein and vide communication dated 14.12.2021, the petitioners have been asked to immediately handover the portion of their lease lands for the railway project informing that the petitioners would be compensated in accordance with the aforesaid Circular dated 02.08.2021, once the amount of compensation is paid to the GIDC by the acquiring body. It was communicated that the Railway Department would begin work of extension within a period of 7 days. 13. As there was no acquisition notification, nor there was any intimation to the petitioners in that regard, the petitioners wrote letters to the officers of the GIDC to provide them complete records pertaining to the acquisition, if any. There is a reference of the communication issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Assistant Collector, Dabhoi addressed to the concerned Secretary, Revenue Department dated 26.10.2021 requesting guidance regarding calculation of compensation and the persons interested to whom it would be payable in view of the proposed acquisition of the subject lands. 14. It is brought on record that the Assistant Collector wrote a letter dated 03.12.2021 to the Collector, Vadodara requesting for the change in the purpose of the lands in question under Section 100 of the Act' 2013 on the premise that the lands in question had been acquired on 12.10.1976 under the Land Acquisition Act for industrial purposes for GIDC. Based on the said letter, the Collector sought permission from the Revenue Secretary under Section 100 of the Act' 2013 for change of ownership of the subject lands view communication dated 05.01.2022. In response thereto, the Revenue Secretary passed an order dated 31.03.2022, granting permission for the change of ownership under Section 100 of the Act' 2013 subject to certain conditions, one of which was direction to the Western Railways, Vadodara to compensate GIDC at the rate of existing market value of the subject lands and to pay the consideration to the petitioners for construction in accordance with the SOR through GIDC. 15. 15. The original prayers made in the Writ petition are to quash the Circular dated 02.08.2021 issued by the GIDC (Respondent no.5) and the order dated 31.03.2022 issued by the Revenue Secretary (Respondent no.2). It seems that during the pendency of the writ petition, Corrigendum Order dated 17.05.2023 reducing the size of the plots allotted to the petitioners unilaterally, has been challenged by amendment of the Writ petition by adding the reliefs; to that respect. 16. The GIDC and the State Authorities in their affidavit-in-reply to the Writ petition have countered the submission of the petitioners about the objection raised by them in the matter of acquisition of the lands in question for the Railway project. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.5 GIDC by the Regional Manager, Vadodara dated 29.03.2022, it is stated that the GIDC is the sole and exclusive owner of the plots allotted to the petitioners. The lands in question are needed for a project of public interest and since only a portion of the plots allotted to them are being acquired, the contention of the petitioners that it would lead to closure of their units or may affect their source of livelihood is false. It is further stated that whatever compensation may be paid to the petitioners, the answering respondent, viz. GIDC being owner, is entitled to 50% thereof. The GIDC has invested huge amount in providing requisite infrastructure to the industrial estate and it cannot be denied that the GIDC is not entitled to any part of the compensation, as alleged by the petitioners. 17. The affidavit of the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dabhoi, Vadodara dated 08.07.2002, wherein no para-wise reply to the Writ petition has been given, states that on the receipt of the proposal from the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Western Railways, Pratapnagar, Vadodara, a measurement exercise was conducted and it was confirmed that 7 plots bearing Nos. 4, 24, 35/B, 36, 37, 49, and 50 at Dabhoi GIDC Estate were required by the Railways for the purpose of conversion of the above referred railway line from narrow gauge to broad gauge. After inviting objections of the land holders, vide communication dated 09.09.2021, the guidance was sought from the Revenue Department and proposal was made to the Collector for institution of proceedings under Sections 99 and 100 of the Act' 2013. After inviting objections of the land holders, vide communication dated 09.09.2021, the guidance was sought from the Revenue Department and proposal was made to the Collector for institution of proceedings under Sections 99 and 100 of the Act' 2013. Based on the said proposal, on a communication made by the Collector, the State Government through the Revenue Department, has granted permission under Sections 99 and 100 of the Act' 2013, upon the terms and conditions laid down therein. It is, thus, submitted that the proceedings of acquisition are pending at the stage of the order dated 31.03.2022 and there has been no further process undertaken by the deponent, viz. the Deputy Collector and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dabhoi, Vadodara. No adversarial proceedings detrimental to the petitioners has yet started and the objections have been called through the GIDC for the acquisition purposes to be made by the Railways. 18. The contention is that the land in question is needed for public purpose and since the provisions of Sections 99 and 100 of the Act' 2013 provide for no opportunity of hearing to the lease holders, no such process has been undertaken. 19. We may note that by the order dated 19.03.2021, this Court has sought for the response of the respondent State, specifically the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat, as to the future course of action which is proposed to be undertaken by the State Government for the purpose of Railway department noticing that the Revenue Department had adopted a casual approach in accepting the proposal forwarded by the Collector without adverting to the provisions of Sections 99 and 100 of the Act' 2013, and all proceedings upto the level of granting of permission to the Collector to proceed under Section 99 and 100 of the Act' 2013, are violative of the due process of law, in the matter of acquisition of the lands in question. 20. In response thereto, in the affidavit-in-reply dated 26.04.2024 filed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, it was fairly admitted that the invocation of Sections 99 and 100 of the Act' 2013 was improper and a bonafide mistake. Corrective measures as proposed in the said affidavit referred to the provisions of Sections 24, Section 17A, inserted by way of State Amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after the process was completed with the making of the Award on 12.10.1976. Corrective measures as proposed in the said affidavit referred to the provisions of Sections 24, Section 17A, inserted by way of State Amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after the process was completed with the making of the Award on 12.10.1976. It is, thus, submitted that as per the provisions of Section 24(1)(b) of the Act' 2013, the land given to the GIDC has to be dealt with under Section 17A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 rather than Sections 99 and 100 of the Act' 2013. The deponent, namely the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department proposes to act in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Act' 2013 read with Section 17A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old). 21. There is a further reference therein to the clarification sought from the Railways and confirmation by them that the alignment of the track cannot be changed. It is also stated that the petitioners who would be affected in the said exercise would be compensated in accordance with the Circular dated 02.08.2021 issued by the GIDC. The State Government has also instructed the Railway Department to compensate the lease holders for their structures as per the Schedule of Rates (SOR) decided by the Road and Buildings Department of the State. 22. In the affidavit dated 18.06.2024 filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 Railways, it is stated that the Railways is in need of the land in question for the public purposes for expanding and upgrading the railway line for direct connectivity from Pratapnagar to Ektanagar and Miyagam bypass line. The proposal for bypass line passing through GIDC land at village Dabhoi, Taluka Dabhoi is submitted to the District Collector, Vadodara on 01.04.2021 seeking for the transfer of land. The contention is that the requirement of Railways for broadening of the railway line is an actual requirement. The Railways has already constructed Dabhoi bypass line (broad gauge) to the existing broad gauge main line of Mumbai-Delhi route to avoid over congestion at Vadodara yard by diverting cross traffic to the line between Miyagam Karjan and Samyala and vice-versa. The aforesaid bypass line connects Pratapnagar Railway Station to Miyagam Karjan Railway Station and has also been commissioned by Railway for public carriage of passengers. The aforesaid bypass line connects Pratapnagar Railway Station to Miyagam Karjan Railway Station and has also been commissioned by Railway for public carriage of passengers. The aforesaid bypass line has a high-level passenger platform of length of 560 mtrs., out of which the required width of the aforesaid platform could not have been completed so far as the length of 297.27 mtrs towards Vadodara end, merely on account of non-availability of GIDC land of 3639 sq. mtrs., which is required to be transferred to Railways by the Revenue Authorities. The said area is urgently needed and unavoidably required by Railways for completion of passenger platform at the above location in the interest of the passenger safety, mobility and utility. It is also not technically feasible to shift the aforesaid affected platform length to another location as per the site conditions and necessity of public use and passenger safety. 23. Referring to paragraph 9' of the order dated 19.03.2024, it is submitted therein that in the interest of public, the Railways is ready to pay fair and reasonable compensation as determined by the Revenue Authority as per the law to the competent authority for further disbursement to the concerned parties in an amicable manner. It is further submitted that Railways has requested the State of Gujarat to provide land for expansion of railway line for public purpose and the manner in which the land required is to be acquired and granted to the Railways, it is not for the Railways to decide. However, the Railways has deposited entire compensation amount before the competent authority for the acquisition and now only disbursement is to be decided by the competent authority after handing over the land in question to the Railways. A prayer has, thus, been made in the affidavit of the Railways to issue a direction to the concerned authorities for reassessment of fair and reasonable compensation, as per law, and its proportion for disbursement to the parties as per entitlement in accordance with law. 24. Taking note of the above material, we may note, at this juncture, that there cannot be any doubt or dispute with regard to the requirement of the Railways for the public purpose for conversion of the railway line from narrow gauge to broad gauge, part of which has already been completed. 24. Taking note of the above material, we may note, at this juncture, that there cannot be any doubt or dispute with regard to the requirement of the Railways for the public purpose for conversion of the railway line from narrow gauge to broad gauge, part of which has already been completed. The petitioners are also not disputing the requirement of the Railways and the measurement sheet in the panch Rojkam of the lands in question which is needed by the Railways for public purpose. 25. The controversy lies in a narrow compass on two questions: firstly, the procedure adopted by the State Government for acquiring the leased land, and secondly, the apportionment of compensation to be determined by the competent authority between the GIDC (land owner) and the petitioners (lessee) on the consideration of rights of the lease holders to seek for apportionment of compensation for the lands leased to them. 26. On the first question of the procedure adopted by the State Government, as evident from the averments in the affidavits of the Deputy Collector and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, as also the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat, that all the State authorities at different stages of consideration of the proposal for acquisition of the lands in question for expansion of railway line submitted by the Railways, had misdirected themselves in reading and understanding the provisions of the two enactments namely the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 27. It is pertinent to note that the lands in question comprising of different industrial plots are part of the Dabhoi GIDC Estate, which has been developed by the GIDC. The acquisition of the lands in question with the making of the award was completed on 12.10.1976 as per the statement made by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat in the affidavit dated 26.04.2024. With the making of the award and transfer of the possession of the acquired lands to GIDC, the land acquisition proceedings, which were conducted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been brought to its logical end. The lands in question which vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances had been transferred to the GIDC on payment of compensation and the acquisition charges. The GIDC, thus, became absolute owner of the lands in question. The lands in question which vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances had been transferred to the GIDC on payment of compensation and the acquisition charges. The GIDC, thus, became absolute owner of the lands in question. The acquired lands for the GIDC Industrial Estate was developed by GIDC by investing money from its own funds. The developed plots have been allotted on lease to the persons selected in the process conducted by the GIDC and the petitioners herein are lawful allottees/lessees of the lands in question. The leases of the lands allotted to the petitioners are still subsisting. 28. In the above scenario, reference to any of the provisions of Section 17A of the Gujarat Act 20 of 1965, which provides for the usage of the acquired lands for any other public purposes with the previous sanction of the State Government, or Section 24 of the Act' 2013, specifically Section 24(1)(b) which permits for continuation of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old Act) is wholly irrelevant. Reliance upon the said provisions is a result of misreading and misunderstanding of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. At this juncture, it is relevant to note Section 17A of the Gujarat Amendment Act 20 of 1965 in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which reads as under :- "17A. Use of land for any public purpose permitted when any lands vests in the State Government or in a corporation owned by the State Government under the provisions of this Act, it shall be lawful with the previous sanction of the State Government to use such land also for any public purpose other than that for which its possession was taken" 29. A careful reading of the said provision indicates that the land vested in the State Government or in a Corporation owned by the State Government under the provisions of the Act may be used for any other public purpose other than that for which the possession was taken. This provision contemplates a situation where the acquired land has not been used for the public purpose for which it was initially acquired and after the possession was taken, the change of purpose which must be essentially public purpose was needed. This provision contemplates a situation where the acquired land has not been used for the public purpose for which it was initially acquired and after the possession was taken, the change of purpose which must be essentially public purpose was needed. The provision merely permits the State Government or the Corporation owned by the State Government to change the purpose provided the acquired land has not been utilised for the public purpose for which it was initially acquired. In the instant case, the lands in question were acquired for development of industrial estate notified by the State Government under the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962. 30. The GIDC has been established for organising of industries in industrial areas and industrial estates in the State of Gujarat as a body corporate with perpetual succession with a common seal, which is competent to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and to contract, and to do all things necessary, for the purposes of this Act, 1962. 31. The acquired lands were once transferred to GIDC, became the lands of ownership of GIDC. With the transfer of ownership, it is not permissible for the State authorities to apply the provisions of Section 17A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 inserted by way of Gujarat Act 20 of 1965 to change the purpose. 32. Moreover, the lands in question, which have been acquired for the purpose of development of industrial estate and had been handed over to GIDC, had been utilised for the said stated purpose. The lands in question vest absolutely with the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) free from all encumbrances being its absolute owner. The land acquisition proceedings with the transfer of the lands in question to GIDC had been concluded to its logical end and. as such, reference to the transitory provision of Section 24(1) (b) is also misguided and misconceived. Section 24 is a transitory provision incorporated under the Act' 2013 which applies to those cases where the land acquisition proceedings though initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 repealed by the Act' 2013, but could not be completed under the old Act, viz. the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 33. As noted hereinbefore, in the instant case, the acquired lands were handed over to GIDC and after transfer, they were utilised for development of industrial estate. the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 33. As noted hereinbefore, in the instant case, the acquired lands were handed over to GIDC and after transfer, they were utilised for development of industrial estate. Not only this, third party rights have been created over the lands in question with the grant of leases to the petitioners. By no stretch of imagination, the lands in question can be said to be available to the State Government to invoke the provisions of Section 17A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 inserted by the Gujarat Amendment Act 20 of 1965. 34. The stand taken by the respondent State through the affidavit of the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department dated 26.04.2024 for the purpose of the lands in question to Railways for their project of expansion of railway line is liable to be rejected being misconceived. 35. The only option before the State Government is to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Act' 2013 for acquisition of the lands in question to transfer the lands in question to the Railways for the project of expansion of railway line. The proceedings under the Act' 2013 has to be conducted by adopting due process of law, inasmuch as, the lands in question have been utilised for the purposes for which it was acquired by creating third party rights with the grant of lease of the developed industrial plots to the petitioners herein. 36. From a perusal of the lease deed, it is evident that the leases of the immovable property in favour of the petitioners were a kind of perpetual lease with the absolute right to the lease holders to enjoy the leased property in all manner, except for mines and minerals in and under the land. As per the statement in the lease deed, the transferred plots in question in the Dabhoi Industrial Estate were together with all rights, privileges, easement, advantages and appurtenances whatsoever thereto on the lands in question conferred to the leasees. The initial period of lease was for 99 years, which is still subsisting. Moreover, even after the expiry of 99 years of initial period of lease, the lessees have a right to seek for renewal for a further period of 99 years with the same covenants and provisions and stipulations, terms and conditions, etc. except clause of renewal and the amount of rent, which may be determined by the lessor. 37. Moreover, even after the expiry of 99 years of initial period of lease, the lessees have a right to seek for renewal for a further period of 99 years with the same covenants and provisions and stipulations, terms and conditions, etc. except clause of renewal and the amount of rent, which may be determined by the lessor. 37. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines the lease of immovable property as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised. It is said that lease is not a mere contract, it envisages and transfers an interest in the demised property by creating a right in favour of the lessee in rem. The lessee of a property has a right to possession and enjoyment of the demised property to the exclusion of the lessor, right to exclusive possession and enjoyment of the disputed property. Even the GIDC, which is a lessee, has no right to enter into the leased property except in case of breach of the terms and conditions of the lease deed or covenants. There is no question of the State Government entering into the lands in question when the lessee's right to possession and enjoyment of the disputed property is to the exclusion of the lessor. 38. This issue can be addressed with the aid of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Inder Prashad vs Union Of India [1994 SCC (5) 239], where the question was of the acquisition of a Nazul land and the right of the lessee to seek compensation. Considering the terms and conditions of the lease deed therein, it was noted by the Apex Court that the land therein was leased with the permission of the lessor to construct a building and the lessee was in quiet enjoyment with the covenants. In the land acquisition proceedings, conducted according to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the lands therein together with the building was acquired for public purpose. The compensation was determined and the matter was referred to the Civil Court for apportionment of compensation as the Collector was not able to decide as to what proportion the lessee and the lessor were entitled to receive the compensation. The compensation was determined and the matter was referred to the Civil Court for apportionment of compensation as the Collector was not able to decide as to what proportion the lessee and the lessor were entitled to receive the compensation. The Civil Court had determined the question of apportionment of compensation and the challenge before the Apex Court was to the determination made in favour of the State Government. 39. The Apex Court therein has taken note of its previous decision in Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri [ AIR 1955 SC 298 ] to note that the Land Acquisition officer in the award under Section 11 had no jurisdiction to determine compensation payable towards the leasehold interest held by the lessee. When a land is granted on lease in favour of a lessee, the power of the State Government to resume the land is subject to non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the lease by the lessee. So long as the lessee acts and complies with the covenants contained in the lease or the grant, the right to resumption in terms of the lease or grant would not arise. 40. However, when the land is required for public purpose, in terms of the covenants, the Government is entitled to exercise its option to determine the lease though the lessee has been complying with the condition of payment of annual premium or rent and resume the land in accordance with terms of the grant. In that event, the need to take recourse to acquisition and to make compensation does not arise. But where the Government granted the lease of the open land with the permission to the lessee to construct a building for his quiet enjoyment with appropriate covenants and the lessee with permission constructed the building and by complying with the covenants of the lease was in quiet enjoyment. The selfsame property, when required for public purpose, the Government cannot unilaterally determine the lease and call upon the lessee to deliver the possession. In such cases, the Government is required to exercise the power of eminent domain by invoking the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act for getting such land. The Collector shall have to determine compensation towards the leasehold interest held by the lessee, if assessable separately and determine the compensation. In such cases, the Government is required to exercise the power of eminent domain by invoking the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act for getting such land. The Collector shall have to determine compensation towards the leasehold interest held by the lessee, if assessable separately and determine the compensation. The lessee being the owner of the superstructure and the Government being the owner of the land, if compensation is determined for both the components, then the same has to be apportioned between them. At what proportion the lessor and the lessee are entitled to receive the compensation has to be determined. In the absence of any covenant in the lease for payment and in the absence of any specific data available to him, the Collector has to determine the respective shares at which the compensation is to be apportioned between the Government and the lessee. The course open to the Land Acquisition Collector is to determine the total compensation, make an award and make a reference to the civil court under Section 30 for decision on apportionment. 41. We may find that exactly, that is the situation in the facts of the present case before us. In the instant case, the GIDC has granted the lease of the open land with the permission to the lessees to utilise the same for setting up industry by erecting buildings, etc. and the lessees after raising constructions in compliance of the conditions in the lease deeds, are in quite enjoyment of the land. As the lessees have acted and complied with the covenants contained in the lease, the question of right of resumption of the GIDC in terms of the lease would not arise. 42. The State Government cannot unilaterally determine the lease and call upon the lessees to deliver the possession when it is not party to the lease deed. The State Government is required to exercise the power of eminent domain by invoking the provisions of the Act' 2013 for getting such land for the stated Public Purpose. The Collector shall have to determine the compensation towards the leasehold interest held by the lessees, if assessable separately, and determine the compensation. 43. The State Government is required to exercise the power of eminent domain by invoking the provisions of the Act' 2013 for getting such land for the stated Public Purpose. The Collector shall have to determine the compensation towards the leasehold interest held by the lessees, if assessable separately, and determine the compensation. 43. The GIDC being the owner of the lands in question and having invested huge amount of money for development of the lands as industrial estate, allotted to the lessees, would be entitled to seek apportionment of compensation determined for the lands in question. 44. In case of any dispute in the matter of apportionment at the time of making of the Award, the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer shall have to make a reference to the Civil Court to determine the proportion in which the lessor and lessee are entitled to receive the compensation. 45. The stand of the State Authorities in seeking to resume the land by changing the purpose invoking the provisions of the Section 17A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 24(1) 9(b) of the Act' 2013 is wholly misconceived, being in ignorance to the right of the lessor and lessee in a leased land and law pertaining to acquisition. 46. Even the GIDC being lessor cannot unilaterally determine the lease of the lands in question and seek resumption by issuance of the communications, which are subject matter of challenge herein, on the premise that the lands in question are needed for public purpose. The legal procedure to acquire the lands in question shall have to be followed by the State Government on the proposal submitted by the Railways which needs the lands in question on an urgent bases. 47. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decisions of the Apex Court in Inder Parshad (supra), Co. Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur vs. Bihari Lal [ (1994) 4 SCC 523 ], Mangat Ram vs. State of Hariyana [ (1996) 8 SCC 664 ] and Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. [ (1997) 4 SCC 511 ], is found to be convincing. 48. Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur vs. Bihari Lal [ (1994) 4 SCC 523 ], Mangat Ram vs. State of Hariyana [ (1996) 8 SCC 664 ] and Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. [ (1997) 4 SCC 511 ], is found to be convincing. 48. We, therefore, allow the Writ petition with the setting aside of the order dated 31.03.2022 issued by the respondent no.2 Revenue Secretary and the Corrigendum Order dated 17.05.2023 issued by the respondent GIDC seeking to take the possession of the plots in question at the GIDC Estate in Dabhoi at Vadodara, which are in the peaceful possession of the petitioners, under the validly subsisting leases in their favour. 49. It is kept open for the State Government to initiate proceedings for acquisition of the lands in question by complying with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In case of such acquisition, the petitioners being the lessees, having sufficient interest in the leases, being persons interested will have a right to challenge the acquisition, if advised. Allowed as such. Connected Civil Application stands disposed of in view of the disposal of the Writ petition.