PRAKASH GUPTA,J. - (1.) The instant Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the Petitioner, assailing the orders dated 10.05.2018 passed by the Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan and the Collector, Jaipur (Respondents 2 and 3 herein) whereby the Respondents revoked/cancelled the order dated 10.08.2001 vide which the land in dispute was set- apart for establishment of a hotel/tourism unit. Under challenge are also the notices dated 23.04.2012, 10.05.2012 and 29.06.2012 and all the proceedings initiated and conducted against the Petitioner by the Respondents in pursuance of the aforementioned notices. A further challenge has been made to the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by Respondent No. 5 whereby the road to the Petitioner's resort/hotel has been ordered to be closed and the order dated 12.06.2018 passed by the JDA vide which the JDA, acting on the order dated 10.05.2018 reserved the land-use for the disputed land as "Agriculture". The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 13.06.2018 passed by the Jaipur Municipal Corporation whereby the Municipal Corporation has cancelled the various licenses/approvals given to the Petitioner. A further prayer has been made before the Court to hold that the Lease Deed dated 06.11.2001 be not set-aside without following due process of law.
(2.) Succinctly put, the factual matrix of the case is as follows: (i) That the Petitioner is a private limited company and is engaged in hospitality business. The Petitioner was formerly known as Heritage Palaces and Sarais Limited, with its registered office at 3rd Floor, UCO Bank Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi but later, the name of the Petitioner-Company was changed to Boutique Hotels India Limited. (ii) That pursuant to the State Government's initiatives to promote tourism in and around the city of Jaipur, the Petitioner along with four of its associate companies purchased several parcels of land including Khasra Nos. 802 admeasuring 2 Bighas, 3 Biswas and Khasra No. 811/1 admeasuring 13 Bighas and 18 Biswas situated at Village Amer, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur from individual Khatedars. The aforesaid Khasra numbers were later renumbered as Khasra Nos. 846-848, 856, 859 to 863, 868, 869, 855/9722, 849/9723 and 850/9724 (hereinafter " the disputed land"). The sale deeds with respect to these lands were brought on record as Annexure 4 (Colly). (iii) After having purchased the disputed land, the petitioner approached the state and its regulatory authorities, for seeking the requisite permissions to set-up and operate a hotel/resort on the land. (iv) The Jaipur Development Authority ("JDA") issued a No- Objection Certificate to the Petitioner for setting-up a tourism- unit/resort on the disputed land on 06.06.2000. The Petitioner averred that the said NOC was issued to it in pursuance of the letter dated 01.05.2000 written by the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department. (v) The Petitioner further averred that the Department of Tourism, Art and Culture, Government of Rajasthan also gave its approval for setting-up a resort to the Petitioner vide communication dated 15.11.2000. Further, the Department also recommended for conversion of the disputed land to Hotel Land. (vi) Acting on the communication dated 15.11.2000, the District Collector, Jaipur vide communication/letter number 4264 dated 26.05.2001 directed the Petitioner and its sister companies to surrender their Khatedari rights in disputed land in favour of the state, so that the revenues could be mutated and the land could be set-apart for establishment of a Hotel/Resort. (vii) In compliance with the order dated 15.11.2000 written by the District Collector, the petitioner and all its affiliate companies executed a surrender letter dated 08.06.2001 in favour of the State Government, acting through the Tehsildar. (viii) The Petitioner then averred that acting on the directions given by the District Collector vide communication dated 26.05.2001, the Petitioner approached the District Collector and requested that the disputed land be set-apart/kept reserved as Hotel Land. (ix) The District Collector, vide his order dated 10.08.2001 acceded to the request of the Petitioner and set-apart the disputed land as Hotel Land, exercising his powers under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 read with Rule 2 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial Areas Allotment) Rules, 1959. (x) The Department of Tourism thereafter allotted the land to the Petitioner vide its order dated 20.08.2001 for a period of 99 years. Further, in pursuance of the said allotment order dated 20.08.2001, a Lease Deed came to be executed between the Petitioner and the Department of Tourism and the said Lease Deed was registered on 20.04.2002 and duly recorded at serial number 1512 in Book No. I, Volume No. 219 at page number 112. (xi) As per the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed, the Petitioner was required to establish a hotel and start the operations within 2 years. However, the Petitioner was granted extensions from time to time. Finally, the Hotel was constructed in 2009 and the petitioner has been operating it ever since. Further, the Hotel /Resort initially known as RAAS Resort and now called as Lebua, was opened for tourists in 2010. (xii) The Petitioner then averred that though the Petitioner had obtained all permissions and approvals as was required by the extant laws, rules and regulations, it was served a show-cause notice on 23.04.2012 by the Commissioner, Tourism Department, Government of Rajasthan. It was averred by the petitioner that the said show cause notice dated 23.04.2012 was apparently issued to it in pursuance of the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995 titled as T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India and Others, in which an Interim Application No. 2066- had been filed by one Mohan Lal Sharma. It was inter alia prayed in the said I.A. Number 2066/2007 that the disputed land be not permitted to be diverted out for commercial activities. (xiii) The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show-cause notice 23.04.2012 on 07.05.2012. It was further averred by the Petitioner that no reply was ever received by the Petitioner from the Respondents. It was further averred that in utter disregard to the reply submitted by the Petitioner, the Department of Tourism again wrote a letter dated 10.05.2012, asking the Petitioner to clarify the issues raised by the Forest Department vide its letter dated 02.05.2012. (xiv) The Petitioner further averred that despite having submitted a detailed reply on 11.05.2012, the Petitioner was served with another show-cause notice on 29.06.2012 by the Department of Tourism, to which the Petitioner submitted yet another reply on 05.07.2012. (xv) The petitioner then averred that from 2012 till as late as 2018, the Respondents did not take any action or steps, being fully content and satisfied by the reply to the show-cause notices submitted by the Petitioner. However, in 2018 some officials from the JDA visited the Petitioner's resort and enquired about the permissions and approvals taken by the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner was also informed about the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in I.A. Number 2066/2007. (xvi) That though the Petitioner appeared before the Hon'ble Apex Court on the next date of hearing in I.A. 2066/2007 i.e. 11.05.2018 and apprised the Hon'ble Court of the entire factual matrix, a news item was published in a vernacular newspaper, wherein it was mentioned that the allotment letter, lease deed and the order vide which the disputed land had been set-apart had been revoked/cancelled. (xvii) The Petitioner got to know that vide order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the Revenue Department, the allotment later dated 20.08.2001 issued by the Department of Tourism was revoked. Further, the Petitioner also averred that the said order was neither sent nor communicated to it. Further, vide the aforesaid order dated 10.05.2018, the Lease Deed executed between the Petitioner and the State was also revoked/cancelled. Furthermore, the Collector was also directed to initiate action for revoking the order vide which the disputed land was set-apart/kept reserved as Hotel Land were also declared to be void. (xix) The petitioner has also averred that while the Petitioner's Writ Petition was pending, in the earlier round of litigation, orders dated 14.05.2018 and 12.06.2018 were passed by Respondent No. 5 and 6 whereby the road to the Petitioner's resort/hotel has been ordered to be closed and the JDA, acting on the order dated 10.05.2018 reserved the land-use for the disputed land as "Agriculture". The petitioner has also averred that another dated 13.06.2018 was passed by the Jaipur Municipal Corporation whereby the Municipal Corporation has cancelled the various licenses/approvals given to the Petitioner (xx) The Petitioner next averred that the said order dated 10.05.2018 was allegedly issued pursuant to the recommendations of a High-Level Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan. The High-Level Committee was of the opinion that the petitioner had intentionally violated the condition of constructing a 60 Feet road in front of its resort, as contained in the NOC issued by the JDA on 06.06.2000. Further, the Petitioner was also held to have violated the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. (xxi) Being aggrieved of the order dated 10.05.2018 and the show-cause notices dated 23.04.2012, 10.05.2012 and 29.06.2012 as also the orders dated 14.05.2018, 12.06.2018 and 13.06.2018, the Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition. ARGUMENTS BY THE COUNSELS
(3.) Mr Kamlakar Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, while reiterating the facts and averments made in the Writ Petition, has challenged the impugned order dated 10.05.2018 and the aforementioned show-cause notices on various grounds. Mr Sharma first contended that the impugned order dated 10.05.2018 and the show-cause notices and all the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the same were not only arbitrary but against the Principles of Natural Justice. It was contended by the learned senior counsel that revoking the lease deed dated 06.11.2001 executed by the petitioner with the respondents as also the allotment letter dated 20.08.2001 without following due process of law and also without affording any hearing to the petitioner was violative of the Petitioner's rights under Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The learned senior counsel contended that for revoking/cancelling the lease deed dated 06.11.2011 and the allotment letter dated 20.08.2001, the respondents ought to have filed a civil suit. Cancelling the Lease Deed and the Allotment Letter unilaterally, after a lapse of almost 17 years speaks volume about the capricious and arbitrary action on part of the respondents. To support his contention, the learned senior counsel relied on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. and Others V. S.N. Raj Kumar and Another, (2016) 6 SCC 410 and the judgment dated 2.04.2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in JDA v. Anukampa Vyas, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 254/2012. Mr Sharma next contended that the doctrine of Estoppel should also be invoked against the Respondents. It was argued that after the issuance of the allotment letter dated 20.08.2001 and the Lease Deed dated 06.11.2001, the Petitioner has been granted all the requisite license/approvals like Ground Water Permission, NOC from Fire Department, permissions from the State Pollution Control Board etc. time to time. Thus, revoking the lease-deed, that too unilaterally and without affording any personal hearing to the petitioner was highly unreasonable and arbitrary. Mr Kamlakar also contended that the affidavit filed by the State of Rajasthan in Contempt Petition No. 133/2007 and I.A. Number 2066/2007 before the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) also in contradiction to the allotment letter dated 20.08.2001 and the Lease Deed dated 06.11.2011. It was vehemently contended that despite the setting-apart order issued by the District Collector and the Lease Deed dated 06.11.2001, the Respondents had submitted before the CEC that no permission had been granted by the Forest Department. Mr Sharma also drew the attention of the Court to the reply (Annexure 17) submitted by the Petitioner to the notice dated 23.02.2012 . It was unequivocally stated by the Petitioner in its reply that the disputed land did not fall within forest land. In fact, the state government had sent a proposal to the Central Government for including the an area of 100 meters around the Nahargarh sanctuary as an "Eco-Sensitive Zone" and the Central Government was yet to take a decision in that regard. It was also stated in the reply to the show-cause notice that even the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Rajasthan vide his letter dated 31.08.2004 had clarified that Khasra No. 802 to 811 were not "forest" land. Further, Mr Sharma also contended that the Petitioner did not need any permission from the Forest Department because Clause 1.5 of the proposal sent by the State Government dated 31.03.2011 permitted existing hotels/resorts to continue their business, provided they treated their effluents through a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). It was also contended by Mr Sharma that even the Bye-Laws of the JDA i.e. the Jaipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region Building) Bye-Laws, 2000 permitted resorts/motels/hotels to operate in ecological sensitive zones.;