Dismissed

Harilal Lakhmanji Soni v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC27 Jun 2014SCA/86/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking fixation of market price for non-agricultural land conversion and waiver of premium. The petitioner had already applied for a deposit of the determined premium without raising an objection earlier, and the earlier decision fixed the price based on the District Valuation Committee's report, which was binding.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed. The respondent was directed to take necessary steps if the deposited amount is not paid along with interest, otherwise the conversion permission shall stand revoked.

Harilal Lakhmanji Soni Vs State of Gujarat — Land Acquisition | Gujarat HC (2014)

¶1

C/SCA/86/2004 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 86 of 2004

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

¶6

================================================================

¶7

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶8

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶9

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

¶10

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶11

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

¶12

================================================================

¶13

HARILAL LAKHMANJI SONI....Petitioner(s)

¶14

Versus

¶15

STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)

¶16

================================================================

¶17

Appearance:

¶18

MR. HARIN P. RAVAL with MR. C.P.CHAMPANERI with MR ASHISH H SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

¶19

MR. BHARAT VYAS, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3

¶20

================================================================

¶21

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

¶22

Date : 27/06/2014

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Page 1 of 5

¶25

C/SCA/86/2004 JUDGMENT

¶26

The present petition is filed by the Petitioner under Articles 14, 300A and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1979 for the prayer inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant Non-Agricultural (“NA”) use permission with respect to the land in question and further direction to fix the market price of the said land for the purpose of grant of NA use. It is also prayed to stay the operation of the communication at Annexure-M, Annexure-J and Annexure-I on the grounds stated in the petition.

¶27

Heard learned Advocate Shri Champaneri for the petitioner and learned AGP Shri Bharat Vyas for the Respondents.

¶28

As it transpires from the record the petitioner had applied for regularization and adding the portion of the land as stated in detail which has been granted. The order at Annexure-E is evident. Thereafter the petitioner had applied for the conversion to NA land and the same has also been acceded as it appears from the record. However, learned Advocate Shri Champaneri has stated referring to the paper / table at page 54 that it was initially proposed as Rs.61.30p. whereas the impugned communication at Annexure-I dated 21.10.1999 refers to the price fixed by the District Valuation Committee at Rs.200/- in its meeting dated 24.3.1999. Thus it is this difference in the price for which the grievance is made. He has

¶29

Page 2 of 5

¶30

C/SCA/86/2004 JUDGMENT

¶31

further stated that the application was made on 18.11.1997 produced at Annexure-F and the decision is taken in the year 1999 and thereafter it has been conveyed in the year 2003 vide communication dated 8.9.2003 at Annexure-L. Therefore learned Advocate Shri Champaneri has stated that appropriate order may be passed. He has also stated that there is a case of discrimination. Though these submissions have been made the same are without any basis. As could be seen from the record initially the petitioner had applied for adding the area and regularizing the same which has been granted. Thereafter he has applied for conversion into NA land which is also granted subject to the payment of the premium. The reliance placed on a table stating that it was suggested at Rs.61.30p. has no value inasmuch as it is obviously a suggestion or a note by Talaticum-Mantri who does not have the authority to decide such valuation of the land. The value of the land is decided by the District Valuation Committee which has decided in its meeting dated 24.3.1999 and thereafter the same has been considered and decided in the year 1999. However, the petitioner it appears has made the representation for such fixing of the price and thereafter it has been conveyed. In fact the petitioner had asked for time to make the payment of the said amount which has also been granted as is evident from the communication dated 31.12.2003 produced at Annexure-M. Further in fact the communication at Annexure-J on the

¶32

Page 3 of 5

¶33

C/SCA/86/2004 JUDGMENT

¶34

contrary refers to the fact that if more than six months period has passed after the District Valuation Committee has decided then such a conversion could be subject to further revision and payment of the premium. Inspite of such policy the petitioner has been granted the benefit and the premium is demanded only as per the valuation made by the District Valuation Committee as stated above for which no grievance could be made by the petitioner. Therefore as the grievance of the petitioner is fulfilled except the so called higher premium there is no need to entertain the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In light of the discussion made here in above it does not call for any further indulgence. It is required to be mentioned that even at the time of admission the High Court (Coram: K.A.Puj,J) vide order dated 7.1.2004 has directed to deposit the amount of Rs.5,89,344/- towards the premium and therefore there is no grievance surviving. The present petition therefore deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.

¶35

It is also clarified that there is no confirmation as regards the compliance with the order dated 7.1.2004 passed by the High Court regarding depositing of the amount. Learned Advocate Shri Champaneri has stated that the amount must have been deposited. Therefore if the amount is not deposited in compliance with the order the Respondent Government shall be at liberty to take necessary steps and the petitioner shall

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

C/SCA/86/2004 JUDGMENT

¶38

deposit the amount along with interest @ 9% from the date of the order failing which the permission granted for conversion shall stand revoked.

¶39

(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)

¶40

JNW

¶41

Page 5 of 5

Harilal Lakhmanji Soni v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harilal Lakhmanji Soni v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veersingh Bhavanbhai Rathod Vs Collector Bhavnagar

Shantaben Bholabhai Patel Vs Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal

Bholabhai Chaturdas Patel Vs Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal

Jaishri T Pandya Vs State of Gujarat

Jerambhai Virbhai Ahir Since Deceased Thru Heirs Vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal

Pravinchandra Valjibhai Thro' Poa Amrutlal B Bhakta Vs State of Gujarat