[2025:RJ-JP:19856] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14646/2021 Rajasthan Leather Industries Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At Pucca Bandha, Tonk Through Its Authorized Signatory Chairman Cum Managing Director, Shri Deepak Saini Son Of Shri Chotey Lal Saini, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 690, Bhola Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi- 110003 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To Government, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Secretary, Department Of Industries, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Secretary, Public Enterprises, Jaipur 4. Commissioner, Industries, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 5. Tehsildar, Tonk. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Alankrita Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC Ms. Gunjan Chawla Ms. Priyamda Singh Mr. P.L. Bairwa Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 12/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the decision of the meeting held on 13.06.2008 headed by the Minister dated 25.09.2008 and the subsequent order passed by the Patwari on 02.04.2009. [2025:RJ-JP:19856] (2 of 5) [CW-14646/2021] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question belongs to one Rajasthan State Tanneries Ltd. but on account of financial crisis, the shares of the aforesaid company were sold to the petitioner by the State and an agreement was executed on 12.11.1992 wherein a specific condition No.1(j) was put and it was agreed that the transferee shall use the premises along-with the plant and machinery for manufacturing of leather and leather goods and transferee shall be free to expand and diversify into other areas, as may be useful for the Company and for generating employment for the local population as far as possible. Learned counsel submits that the use of the land was also converted for industrial purpose, by the competent authority, but vide impugned decision taken on 25.09.2008, the petitioner was restrained to sale/alienate the property and the mutation was entered with the aforesaid condition by the Patwari vide entries dated 02.04.2009. 3. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition and prior to filing of this writ petition, the opinion of Advocate General was sought and Advocate General vide his opinion dated 22.02.2012 opined that in the light of Sections 10 & 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1882”) and as per condition No.1(j) of the agreement dated 12.11.1992 and Section 133 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1956”), there is no justifiable ground to deny permission to the petitioner for diversifying its portfolio. Learned counsel submits that the condition put by the Ministry with regard [2025:RJ-JP:19856] (3 of 5) [CW-14646/2021] to sale/alienation of the property in question per se illegal & bad as per Section 10 of the Act of 1882. Learned counsel submits that, during pendency of this writ petition, the matter was re- examined by the Government at the level of Ministry, and in the interest of public at large, permissions has been granted to the petitioner to develop the land in question for the purposes of starting an Agro Based Food Park, therefore the instant writ petition be disposed of granting the liberty aforesaid, to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 12.11.1992, the dispute can be resolved by way of arbitration. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be allowed to sale/alienate the land in question, hence under these circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that an agreement was executed between the respondents and the petitioner on 12.11.1992 wherein certain terms and conditions were imposed. The condition No.1(j) is relevant for adjudication of the matter, which reads as under:- “(j) It has been agreed that the transferee shall use premises and plant and machinery for manufacture of leather and leather goods. However, the transferee shall be free to expand and diversify into other areas as may [2025:RJ-JP:19856] (4 of 5) [CW-14646/2021] be useful for the Company and for generating employment for the local population, as far as possible.” 7. Perusal of the aforesaid condition clearly indicates that the petitioner-company was allowed to use the premises and plant and machinery for the manufacturing of leather and leather goods and liberty was also granted to the petitioner-Company to expand and diversify into other areas, as may be useful for the Company and for generating the employment for the local population, as far as possible. 8. Thereafter, the use of the land was converted for industrial purposes but at a subsequent stage when the matter came before the respondents, the Ministry directed the Revenue authorities to put a condition in the revenue record that the petitioner would not sale/alienate the property in question. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ministry as well as the Revenue Authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court. 9. It appears that Government, i.e., the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan at its own level sought opinion from the Advocate General, and after considering the provisions of law in the light of Sections 10 & 11 of the Act of 1882, and according to the condition No.1(j) as incorporated in the agreement dated 12.11.1992, and giving reference of Section 133 of the Act of 1956, it was opined that there is no justifiable reason to deny permission to the petitioner for diversifying its portfolio. 10. It also appears that, during pendency of this writ petition, after considering the aforesaid opinion given by the Advocate General, a fresh decision has been taken by the Ministry granting [2025:RJ-JP:19856] (5 of 5) [CW-14646/2021] permission to the petitioner to develop the land for Agro Based Food Park. 11. Considering the aforesaid material aspect of the matter so also the opinion given by the Advocate General as well as the subsequent decision taken by the Ministry of the concerned Department, the instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to use and develop land in question for the purpose of establishing Agro Based Food Park. The petitioner would be at liberty to diversify its portfolio but the petitioner would not be allowed to sale/alienate the property in question without permission of the respondents. 12. In case, the petitioner feels aggrieved by any of the actions of the respondent-State, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Arbitrator for settlement of dispute in terms of the agreement dated 12.11.1992. 13. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/42