Raj Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Another versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

¶1

(2008] 12 S.C.R. 821

¶2

RAJ HOMES PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER v.

¶3

A

¶4

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS (Civil Appeal Nos. 7732-7733 of 2004)

¶5

AUGUST 26, 2008

¶6

B

¶7

[DALVEER BHANDARI AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

¶8

Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - ss. 59 (5) and 258 (iii) - Rule imposing premium - For diversion of c Land for non-agricultural use - Challanged as being in excess of the power granted for such imposition and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution - Held: Imposition of premium was not in excess of the power - It is in consonance with the . . spirit and objects of the Code - Rule imposing the premium D or the Schedule thereof, is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it is based on reasonable differntia - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14.

¶9

Appellants filed writ petitions contending that Rule 14 regarding Imposition of premium u/s 59 (5) of Madhya E Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 imposing flat rate of premium was in excess and violative of ss. 59 (5) and 258 (iii) of the Code; and that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Hence the present appeals. F

¶10

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

¶11

HELD: 1.1 The premium is one time charge for diversion of land for better land use under rule 14 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The scheme of the G Act clearly reveals that the premium is charged only when land use is converted for betterment. In this view of the matter, the State is. fully justified in charging the premium and the same is in consonance with the spirit, objects and reasons of the Code. [Para 27] [842 A-B]

¶12

H

¶13

(2008] 12 S.C.R.

¶14

822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶15

--r-

¶16

B

¶17

A 1.2 The State Government enjoys ample powers of not only to fix land revenue rates or to re-fix them upon conversion/diversion of the land for another use but also charges premium upon diversion of land for another use. [Para 27] [841 G-H]

¶18

B 2. In view of the entire scheme of the Act and the provisions of the Code, it cannot be said that Rule 14 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The classification of various cities in the State is determined as per the values of land in different cities, the extent of population c of those cities and the character .of those cities. The important cities of the State are classified differently from smaller cities and towns as also according to their population. Similarly, villages are also classified differently and rate of levying premium for conversion is accordingly D^{prescribed.TheScheduleisbasedonreasonable} differentia taking into account 31 relevant factors for the purpose, and it cannot be called arbitrary or discriminatory. [Para 27] [842 C-F]

¶19

)-

¶20

).:

¶21

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. E 7732-7733 of 2004

¶22

From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur (M.P.) in Writ Petition No. 27171 & 6269 of 2003

¶23

F

¶24

A.K. Sanghi for the Appellants.

¶25

+·

¶26

Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondents.

¶27

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶28

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. The appellants aggrieved G by the order of the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur dated 26.8.2003 in Writ Petition Nos.6269 and 27171 of 2003 have preferred this appeal with the prayer that the respondent State of Madhya Pradesh be restrained from imposing and collecting any premium under the impugned rule '14 of the Notification H dated 24.1.2002.

¶29

+ . ..,. 'f"""

¶30

·~·

¶31

RAJ HOMES PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER v. STATE 823 OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

-~

-f

A

Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are recapi~ulated as under:

¶36

The respondent State of Madhya Pradesh has imposed premium at flat rate irrespective of use and purpose of the diverted land or any relation whatsoever with the land revenue B imposed on the land. According to the appellants, the impugned rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short "the Code") is arbitrary, unreasonable and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The imposition of premium under rule 14 has been assailed, therefore, it would c be imperative to refer to the relevant provisions regarding imposition of premium as under:

¶37

"IMPOSITION OF PREMIUM

¶38

• ~

¶39

_A

¶40

When the land assessed for any non-agricultural D purpose is diverted to any agricultural purpose no premium shall be imposed under Sub-section (5) of Section 59 of the Code.

¶41

(1) For the purpose of levy of premium on agricultural land other than the land specified in the proviso to Subsection (5) of Section 59 of the Code diverted to nonagricultural purposes, in any towns and villages in the State of Madhya Pradesh shall be divided into the following classes as specified in Column (1) of the Schedule appended to these rules and the premium shall be imposed according to the rates specified in Column (2) and (3) of the said Schedule as the case may be:

¶42

E

¶43

F

¶44

Provided that with the sanction of the State Government the Sub-Pivisional Officer may include any particular village G in higher or lower class than that prescribed in this rule:

¶45

' ..,. ..

¶46

Provided further that no premium shall be payable on agricultural land diverted into residential purposes if the area of diverted land is not exceeding one hundred square

¶47

H

¶48

824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶49

[2008] 12 S.C.R.

¶50

A metre and "Kachha" construction is built on such land.

¶51

Explanation 1.- When the 'abadi' of two or more villages adjoins, the population shall be taken as the population of the combined villages.

¶52

B Explanation II.- 'Kachha' .construction means such construction in which only clay and wood (excluding timber wood) are used.

¶53

The Schedule framed under rule 14 reads as under:

¶54

c

¶55

SCHEDULE

¶56

	Classes	Forresi purpose (e and Indus	dential a xcluding C trial Purpo	ndother ommercial se)	For Comm Purpose	ercial and	Industrial
	(1)		(2)			(3)
D	Class-I	In Municipal Corporation Area	Upto 4 kms. From Municipal Corporation Area	From 4 Kms.To 8 Kms. From the areaof Municipal Corporation	In Municipal Corporation Area	Upto 4 Kms. From Municipal Corporation Area	From 4 Kms.To8 Kms. From the area of Municipal Corporation
E		1	2	3	1	2	3
F G H	Entire Municipal Corporation areaof Gwalior, Indore, Ujjain, Bhopal, Jabalpur, Raipur and Durg and upto 8 Kms. from the outer limitsof Municipal Corporation	Rs.10 per Square Metre	Rs.7.50 per Square Metre	Rs.5 per Square Metre	Rs.20 per Square Metre	Rs. 15 per Square Metre	Rs. 10 per Square Metre -.

¶57

~-

¶58

RAJ HOMES PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER v. STATE 825 OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

825

A

B

E

F

Classes	Forresi purpose ( and Indus	dential a excluding C trial Purpo	ndother ommercial se)	For Comm Purpose	ercial and	Industrial
(1)		(2)			(3)
Class-II	In Municipal Corporation Area	Upto 4 kms. From Municipal Corporation Area	From 4 Kms.To 8 Kms. ^{From the} areaof Municipal Corporation	In Municipal Corporation Area	Upto 4 Kms. From Municipal Corporation Area	From 4 Kms.To8 Kms. ^{From the} areaof Municipal Corporation
	1	2	3	1	2	3
Entire Municipal Corporation area excluding the abovementi oned Municipal .~ shown in Class I and upto 8 Kms. from the outer limitsof Municipal Corporatioh	Rs. 7.50 per Square Metre	Rs. 5.00 per Square Metre	Rs.3.75 per Square Metre	Rs. 15 per Square Metre	Rs. 10 per Square Metre	Rs. 7.50 per Square Metre

¶65

Classes	For residen purpose(exd andIndustrial	tial and other udingCommercial Purpose)	For Com Industrial P	mercial and urpose
(1)	(	2)	(	3)
Class-Ill	InMunicipal Couneil	Upto5Kms. From Municipal Council	InMunicipal Council Area	Upto 5 Kms. From Municipal Council area
	1	2	1	2
Entire areaof Municipal Council more than 50 thousand Population and upto 5 Kms. from the outer limits of MunicipalCouncil.	Rs.5.00 per Square Metre	Rs.3.75 per Square Metre	Rs.10 per Square Metre	Rs.7.50 per Square Metre

c

D

G

H

826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶71

[2008) 12 S.C.R.

¶72

A	..Classes	For residen purpose(exdu andIndustrial	tial and other dingCommercial Purpose)	For Com Industrial Pu	mercial and rpose
	(1)	(	2)	(	3)
8	Class-IV	InMunicipal Council	Upto3Kms. FromMunicipal Council area	InMunicipal Council Area	Upto 3Kms. From Municipal Council area
		1	2	1	2
c	Entire areaof Municipal Councilof20 to50thousand population and upto 3'Kms. from the outer limits of Municipal Council.	Rs.3.00 per Square Metre	Rs.1.50 per Square Metre	Rs.6.00 per Square Metre	Rs.3.00 per Square Metre
D	Classes	For residen purpose(exdu andIndustrial	tial and other dingCommercial Purpose)	For Com Industrial Pu	mercial and rpose
	(1)	(	2)	(3	)
	Class-V	Inthe area ofNagar Panchayat	Upto3Kms. FromNagar Panchayatarea	In the areaof nagar Panchayat	Upto 3 Kms. From Nagar Panchayat area
E		1	2	1	2
	Entire areaof Nagar Panchayat and upto 3 Kms. from the outer	R$.1.50 per Square Metre	Rs.1.00 per Square Metre	Rs.3.00 per Square Metre	Rs.1.50 per Square Metre
F	limitsofNagar Panchayats

¶73

Class-VI	Within limitsof village area	Outside the limitsof village area	Within village area	Outofvillage area
	1	2	1	2
Village whose population is more than 2 thousaml	Rs.0.75 per Square Metre	Nil	Rs.1.50 per Square Metre	Nil

G

·~

H

.,

I

RAJ HOMES PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER v. STATE 827 OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

•

·~

~

-4

The appellants submitted that reading of section 59 with rules 1to12 and sections 77, 78, 79, 81, 82 and 98 of the Code shows that the land revenue is imposed on the land on the basis of use, purpose, location, area, size of plot, rental value, assessment rates, advantages and disadvantages etc. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate to set out section 59 of the Code as under:

¶85

"Section 59. Variation of land revenue according to purpose for which land is used.- (1) The assessment of land revenue on any land shall be made with reference to the use of land-

A

B

c

(a) for the purpose of agriculture or such farm house, which is situated on holding of one acre or more;

¶90

(b) as sites for dwelling houses;

.>

-}

~

""-

,,,,r )

(c) for purposes other than those specified in items (a),^D (b), (d) or (e);

¶97

(d) for industrial or commercial purpose;

¶98

(e) for the purpose of mining under a mining lease within the meaning of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (No.67 of 1959);

¶99

E

¶100

Provided that the assessment of land revenue on any land situated in the areas which are constituted as reserved or protected forests under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (16 of F 1927), with reference to use of land for any of the purposes aforesaid shall not be proceeded with or any procedure relating to the assessment to be followed under the relevant provisions of the Code shall not be commenced except on a certificate permitting the use of land issued by an G officer of the Forest Department duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf;

¶101

Explanation: For the purpose of clause (a) "Farm House" means such building or construction which is any improvement as defined in clause 0) of sub-section ( 1) of H

¶102

[2008] 12 S.C.R.

¶103

828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶104

• ' i !':... 1-'

¶105

,..-I • 1-- r ~I . "'· ~ ' * r- I

¶106

¶107

A	Section 2, the plinth areaofwhich shall not exceed one hundred square meter and the builtuparea shall not exceed one hundred fifty square meter.
B .,	(2) Where land assessed for use for any one purpose is diverted to any other purpose, the land revenue payable u13onsuch land shall, notwithstanding that the term for which the assessment may have been fixed has not expired, be liable to be· altered and assessedin.accordance with the purpose to which it has been diverted.
c	(2-a) The alteration or assessment referred toinsub- section (2) shall be carried out by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
D E	(3) Where the land heldf~eefrom the paymentofland revenueo_nconditionofbeing used for any pufPose ·is diverted to any other purpose it shall become liable to the paymentofland revenue and assessedinaccordance with the purpose to which it has been diverted. (4) The assessment made under sub-section (2) and (3) shall be in accordc:mce with the rules madebyState Government in this behalf and such rules shall be in- . accordance with the principles containedinChapter VIIor VIII, as the case may be. ·
	(5) Where land for use for any one purposeisdiverted to
F	any other purpose, and land revenueisassessed thereon under the pro.visionsofthis section, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall also have power to impose a premium oh the diversioninaccordaoce with rules made under this Code:
G	Provided that no premium shall be imposed for the diversionofany landfor·charitable purpose. (6) Notwithstanding any usage or grantoranything containedinany law, the rightofall persons holding land, which immediately before the co'ming into forceofthe Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954(IIof1955).

¶108

H

¶109

RAJ HOMES PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER v. STATE 829 OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

¶110

~

¶111

was held in malik makbuza right, to exemption from A payment of premium on diversion of such land is hereby abolished; but every such person shall, on diversion of such land, be entitled in lieu of such right to a rebate equal to the land revenue for one year payable for such land from the amount of premium determined under sub-section 8 (5)."

¶112

A

¶113

It would be appropriate to recapitulate rules pertaining to imposition of premium.

¶114

"RULES REGARDING ALTERATION OF ASSESSMENT AND IMPOSITION OF PREMIUM

¶115

c

¶116

[Notifications No.175-6477-Vll-N (Rules); dated the 6th January 1960 and as amended by No.1400-Vll-N-1, dated 21st May 1971, published in M.P. Raj. Pt. 4G, dated 11.6.1971, p. 270 and by No.F.11-7-Vll-S-8-89 dated D . 24.1.2000]

¶117

>- ~

¶118

In these rules "Code" means the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959).

¶119

A. ALTERATION OF ASSESSMENT

¶120

E

¶121

(i) Diversion from a non-agricultural purpose to an . agricultural purpose in non-urban and urban areas.

¶122

~

¶123

.,.._, )

¶124

When land already diverted to a non-agricultural purpose and re-assessed on that bas.is is ·-rediverted to an agricultural purpose the assessment as refixed shall be equal to the agricultural assessment on the land as fixed at the last settlement.

¶125

F

¶126

When land already diverted to a non-agricultural purpose and assessed on that basis is rediverted to an agricultural G purpose and there is no agricultural assessment to fall back upon, the assessment on rediversion shall be fixed at the rate adopted for similar soil in the same village or in a neighbouring village at the last settlement.

H

.,

[2008] 12 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

830

. '

, '^,, ... '-

E

,;

A 4. The assessment fixed under rules 2 and 3 shall remain in force till the next succeeding settlement of the village. (ii) diversion from an agricultural purpose to a nonagricultural purpose.

¶137

(a) Non-Urban a'"eas

¶138

B

¶139

If any land assessed at agricultural rates is diverted to a nc;n-agricult~:ral purpose, the assessment thereon shall be revised in accordanc~ with any of the methods specified below according to the circumstances· of the case, Viz.:-

,,..

~

c

D

F

G

(a) If the area in which the land is situate has an assessment rate as approved by the State Government under Sub.section (2) of Section 77 of the Code, then in accordance with the assessment rate so prevailing.

¶147

(b) If there be no assessment rate in force as aforesaid, then the Sub-Divisional Officer shall calculate the estim~ted rental value of the land to be assessed in accordance with rules 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the rules framed under Clauses (viii), (ix), (x) & (xii) of Sub-section (2) of section 258 of the Code, as far as they may apply and fix the assessment of the land up to the maximum of 33 percent of the estimated rental value of the land, taking into account the advantages · or disadvantages and other circumstances peculiar to the survey number to be assessed.

¶148

In fixing the actual assessment, the area of a survey number of Sub .. division measuring less than 5 sq. metres shall be taken to be 5 sq. metres. In other cases areas up to 5 sq. metres shall be ignored, and areas exceeding 5 sq. metres but below 10 sq. n:ietres shall be taken as 10 square metres. The assessment shall be correct to the nearest naye Paise.

¶149

The assessment fixed under rule 5 shall remain in force till the next succeeding settlement of the village.

(b) Urban Areas

'I-.,

.(

'*

~

~ I. . ...... ~

H

·--\

RAJ HOMES PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER v. STATE 831 OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

¶159

If any land in an urban area assessed at agricultural A rate is diverted to an non-agricultural purpose, its assessment shall be altered by fixing the actual assessment on the basis of the standard rate prevailing for the area in which the land is situated, if, in such area, a standard rate as approved by the State Government B under rule 30 of the rules framed under clauses (xvi), (xvii) and (xviii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 258 of the Code, is in force.

¶160

If no such standard rate is in force, the average letting value of the land shall be calculated, as far as may be, in^c accordance with rules 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the rules made under the clauses specified in rule 8 above and a standard rate determined in accordance with the provisions of rule 30 of the said rules.

}

Jif.

~·

.,.,_

.. j

D

On such standard rate being calculated, the SubDivisional Officer shall fix the actual assessment on the land diverted to a non-agricultural purpose up to one-third of the estimated annual· rental value of the land, ifthe land is held for the purposes mentioned in clause (b) or (c) of E Sub-section (1) of Section 59 of the code and up to oriehalf of the estimated annual rental value, if the land is held for purposes mentioned in clause (d) of the said Subsection.

¶168

In fixing the actual assessment, the area of a plot F measuring less than 5 sq. metres shall be taken to be 5 sq. metres. In other cases areas up to 5 sq. metres shall be ignored, and areas exceeding 5 sq. metres but below 10 sq. metres shall be taken as 10 sq. metres. The assessment shall be correct to the nearest naye paise.

¶169

G

¶170

The assessment fixed under rule 10 shall remain in force till the next succeeding settlement of the village.'

¶171

x x x x "

¶172

Sections 77, 78, 79, 81, 82 arid 98 are also set out.

¶173

H

¶174

832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 12 S.C.R.

')-·

~

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

Section 77. Fixation of assessment rates.- (1) On completing the necessary inquiries, as may be prescribed, the Settlement Officer shall forward to the State Government his proposals for assessment rates for different classes of land in such form and along with such other particulars as may be prescribed.

¶187

(2) The State Government may approve the assessment rates with such modifications as it may deem fit.

¶188

Section 78. Maximum and minimum limits for the rate of assessment.- The maximum and minimum limits for the assessment rate shall respectively be one and quarter times and three-fourth of the assessment rate in force for the time being:

¶189

Provided that in the event it is considered desirable to alter the minimum or maximum limits, aforesaid, a proposal to that effect shall be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly for its approval and the limits of assessment rate shall thereafter be altered in accordance with the proposals as approved.

¶190

Section 79. Fixation of fair assessment.- The Settlement Officer shall fix the assessment on each holding in accordance with t_he assessment rates approved under section 77 and the provisions of the section 81 and such assessment shall be the fair assessment of such holding.

¶191

Section 81. Principles of assessment.- (1) The fair assessment of all lands shall be calculated in accordance with the principles and restrictions set forth in the section.

¶192

(2) No regard shall be had to any claim to hold land on privileged terms.

¶193

(3) Regard shall be had in the case of agricultural land to the profits of agriculture, to the consideration paid for leases' to the sale prices of land and to the principal moneys on mortgages, and_ in the case of non-agricultural

-

.-i,

~

).__

~- 4,

. ,, .. ·.-···'--·~---·

c

D

E

f

RAJ HOMES PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER v. STATE 833 OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.J

¶205

land, to the values of the land for the purpose for which it A. is held.

¶206

(4) The fair assessment on land used for non-agricult11ral purposes shall not exceed thirty-three per centum of the, estimated rental value of the land.

¶207

B

¶208

(5) Where an improvement has been effected at any time in any holding held for the purpose of agriculture by or at the expense of the holder thereof, the fair assessment of such holding shall be fixed as if the improvement had not been made.

¶209

(6) Except for special reasons to be approved in each case by the State Government, no increase in the fair assessment of a holding for the purpose of agriculture shall exceed fifty per centum of the existing assessment. Section 82. Announcement of settlement.- (1) When the assessment of any land has been fixed in (:!CCOrdance with section 79, notice thereof shall be given in accordance with rules made under this Code, and such notice shall be called the announcement of the settlement.

¶210

(2) The assessment of any land, as announced under this section, shall be the land revenue payable annually on such land during the term of the settlement unless it is modified in accordance with the provisions of this Code, or any other law.

¶211

Section 98. Fixation of standard rates of assessment.- . The Collector shall keep a record in accordance with the rules made under this Code of all registered sales and · leases of lands in the different blocks in urban areas in respect of land held for each of the purpose mentioned in G sub-section (1) of section 59.

¶212

(2) The average annual letting value of lands in each block in respect of land held for purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of section 59 shall be determined separately H

¶213

834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(2008] 12 S.C.R.

j-- -

,l

in the prescribed manner on the basis of transactions of sales and leases in respect of the land held for each of the aforesaid purposes in such block during the period of five years immediately preceding the year in which the letting value is being determined, so far as the information about such transactions is available:

¶218

A

¶219

B

¶220

Provided that if the transactions which have taken place in any block in respect of any land held for any of the aforesaid purpose are not sufficiently representative transactions in respect of the land held for the corresponding purpose during the same period in adjacent block may be taken as basis for determining the letting value.

¶221

c

¶222

(3) The standard rate of assessment for lands held for purposes mentioned in clause (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of section 59 shall be equal to one-third of the average annual letting value determined or the block in respect of such land under sub-section (2) and for purposes mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 59 shall be one half of the average annual letting value determined for the block in respect of such land.

¶223

D

¶224

E

¶225

(4) The standard rates for lands held for agricultural purposes shall be fixed with due regard to soil and position of land and to the profits of agriculture to the consideration paid for leases and to the sale prices of such lands.

¶226

F

¶227

Mr. A.K. Sanghi, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there are restrictions for not exceeding the rental value and assessment rates under sections 81(4) & 81(6) and rule 5 (b) of section 59, which are quoted above. Mr. Sanghi G also submitted that the imposition of land revenue is guided by number of factors, principles, restraints which are not to be found while imposing premium under section 59(5) or the impugned rule 14. There are no guidelines or nexus either with section 59 or the Code itself .

'y

j.,

)r • ~ i . ' I

. H

-t

~·

k

RAJ HOMES PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER v. STATE 835 OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

¶236

Mr. Sanghi further submitted thatthe impugned Rule 14 A which imposed a flat rate of premium irrespective of the factors or considerations which go in imposing land revenue is in excess and violative of section 59(5) and section 258(2)(iii) of the Code. The premium which is sought to be levied cannot exceed the land revenue itself. The land revenue is the main object and B purpose of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.

¶237

Mr. Sanghi contended that the preamble of the Code says that it is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to land revenue, the powers of the Revenue Officers, rights and liabilities of the holders of land from the State Government,^c agriculture tenures and other matters relating to land and the liabilities incidental thereto in Madhya Pradesh. As such, the premium under sub-section (5) to section 59 which has been charged for diverting the land use from agricultural to nonagriculture is only a part of the land revenue and is being charged D by way of additional revenue.

¶238

According to Mr. Sanghi, the premium has to be less than the land revenue imposed on the diverted land. It cannot exceed the land revenue itself. According to him, in the present E case, the premium sought to be imposed is about 100 times than the existing one and is admittedly more than the land revenue in most of the cases.

¶239

--..(

¶240

..,.._ ..., J

¶241

Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State of Madhya Pradesh submitted that the F appellants own 10.48 acres of agricultural land situated in village Narela Shankari, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh~ After obtaining permission for diversion of the land being sought from agricultural purpose to residential purpose, a dernand of Rs.4,05,000/- was made on pccount of premium and the G modified land revenue of Rs.52,756. In the case of lndraprastha Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., a demand for Rs.1,72,054/ - was made on account of premium under the impugned Rule 14 and a sum of Rs.2,42,400/- towards land revenue.

¶242

Ms. Makhija, learned counsel for the State submitted H

¶243

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 12 S.C.R.

836

t

f )'---

A that the appellant herein. made the following two submissions before the High Co'urt:

¶249

i) The State did not have the power to impose premium since the power prescribed under section 258 which is the source of rule making power in the Code is limited to "regulation" of land revenue; and

¶250

B

¶251

ii) Rule 14 and the Schedule appended thereto was ultra vires the constitutional provisions since it violated the mandate of Article 14, inasmuch as, it was arbitrary, and the categories of land therein did not take into account any intelligible differentia while prescribing different slabs of flat raJes for imposing premium upon diversion of the use of land."

¶252

c

¶253

Other grounds which were though challenged in the D High Court were not pressed by the appellants before this court. Learned counsel for the appellants has also conceded that there is no lack of power on behalf of the State to impose the premium but has argued that the classification of the rates is illegal and arbitrary since it does not take into account various E^{factors that are statutorily required to be taken into account for} the purpose of assessment of land revenue It has been argued that there is a cap on the quantum of land revenue that can be imposed under section 81 (4) and rule 5(b) regarding alteration of assessment.and imposition of premium, the premium could F also be imposed only within the limits of such a cap.

¶254

F

¶255

Ms. Makhija, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the objects and reasons of the Revenue Code state that the Code has been enacted to consolidate the different set of laws regarding land revenue. agricultural tenures and G other matters relating thereto in force in different regions of the State of Madhya Pradesh with the purpose of having uniform legislation in the whole of the State.

¶256

--!.

¶257

)r •^.....

¶258

Section 258 is the source of the rule making power of H^{the State which reads as under:}

¶259

...... I

¶260

RAJ HOMES PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER v. STATE 837 OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

¶261

"258. General rule making power. - ( 1) The State A Government may make rules generally for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Code.

¶262

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers such rules may provide for-~

B

(i) ... .

(ii) ... .

(iii) regulation of assessment of land revenue on diversion of land to other purposes and imposition of premium under c section 59.

¶267

"

¶268

Learned counsel for the State also submitted that the Revenue Code is comprehensive Code encompassing all D aspects pertaining to land. Under the scheme of the Code, ownership of all lands of the State is vested in the Government except for legally vested private rights in lands. Section 58 of the Revenue Code empowers the State Government to levy land revenue on all land except the land that has been exempted from such liability by special grant or contract with the State E Government. Learned counsel for the State also contended that section 58(2) states that such revenue is "land revenue", and that the term includes all moneys payable to the State Government for land, notwithstanding that such moneys may be described as premium, rent lease money, quit-rent or in any F other manner, in any enactment, rule, contract, or deed. As such, the State Government has been empowered to levy "land revenue" on all land, under different heads which would not only include the yearly assessment of revenue on the land, but also other heads like premium, quit-money etc. G

¶269

E

¶270

s·ection 59 mandates the variation of land revenue according to the purpose for which land is used. Thus, in the event of diversion of land from a particular land use to another land use, a reassessment of the land revenue is prescribed. In

¶271

H

¶272

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 12 S.C.R.

838

t

B

E

A addition, the Government has also been empowered to impose a premium for such a purpose.

¶279

Section 59(2) empowers the State Government to reassess and re-fix the land revenue leviable on such a parcel of land the use of which is required to be converted/diverted. In addition to the levy of the land revenue, section 59(5) prescribes a one time levy of premium on such conversion/diversion in accordance with the Rules ma·de under the Revenue Code.

¶280

Learned counsel for the State further submitted thatin c^{exercise of powers under section 258 and section 59, the State} Government framed the Rules regarding alteration of assessment and imposition of premium vide notification No. 175-6477-Vll-N (Rules); dated the 5th January 1960 and as , amended by Notification No.1400-VI l-N-1, dated 21st May 1971, D^{publishedinM.P ..Raj.Pt.4G,dated 11.6.1971,p.270 and by} Notification No.F.11-7-Vll-S-8-89 dated 24.1.2000. As per the amendment made in the year 2000, the Schedule prescribes the premium leviable on the conversion of the use of land increased manifold keeping in account the steep escalation in land values.

¶281

Learned counsel for the State also argued that it is clear that the Government has full power to not only fix land revenue rates, re-fix them upon conversion/diversiOf! of land for another use, but also charge premium upon the diversion of · F^{land for another use. Thus, the levy of premium on conversion} of the use of land by the Government is unequivocal, legal and valid and cannot be questioned.

¶282

In reply to the argument of learned co.unsel for the appellants with regard to arbitrary imposition of rates of revenue, G the learned counsel for the State submitted that the imposition of the land revenue is guided by number .of factors and principles. According to various provisions of the Code, they are not imposed in an arbitra1y fashion.

¶283

Learned counsel for the State further submitted that

H

~

-)..,

~.

,..If ' .....

RAJ HOMES PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER v. STATE 839 OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

¶290

' --r

-~

~

~ ..... f

bare perusal of the scheme of Revenue Code clearly empowers A the State Government to impose a premium in addition to the land revenue. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Revenue Code as well as the explanation of the term "land revenue" in section 58(2) clearly establishes that land revenue includes a recurrent periodic levy and other levies on the land B as prescribed under the Code. According to the learned counsel for the State, reliance of the appellants on sections 75 to 98 is of no relevance in the present case since they pertain to the initial fixation of the land revenue. The factors as prescribed in these provisions mandate that the land revenue should be directly c proportionate to the use and value of land and must be arrived at after determining all the factors that would govern the value of a particular parcel of land.

¶295

B

¶296

Learned counsel for the State further submitted that the factors that determine the land revenue of a particular parcel 0 of land _cannot be the determining factors for fixing the rates of premium to be imposed on conversion/diversion of the land for a different use. Learned State counsel submitted that the factors governing the imposition of premium are inherently different from those governing the assessment/determination of land E revenue. This is so since the purpose and object of both the levies are inherently different in character. While the land revenue is a levy closely identifiable with the benefits arising out of occupation of land, premium is a charge on the benefit arising out of betterment of ones holding. The land revenue is of a F recurrent nature which is required to determine in relation to a particular parcel of land and its actual value whereas premium is a one time charge, the basis of determination of which is the estimated value of benefit that is estimated to accrue by virtue of a change in better land use. This basis is fortified by the G existence of rule 13 which prescribes that when any land assessed for any non-agricultural purpose is diverted to any agricultural purpose no premium shall be imposed under section 59(5). Similarly, rule 15 prescribes that upon re-diversion of land from other uses to agricultural, although the premium shall

¶297

H

¶298

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 12 S.C.R.

840

r- /

A not be· refunded, no further premium shall be charged for rediversion. Thus, upon amalgamation of agricultural lands in urban are-as, the value of such lands inherently undergo a betterment in value and thus the premium is validly charged a condition for granting permission to betterthe usage of land. Thus, the charge 8 i.e. the premium which has a direct nexus to the opportunity of betterment of a parcel of land shall be valid and legal.

¶303

Learned counsel for the State further submitted that the ciasses prescribed in Schedule under rule 14 are based on ari intelligible differentia taking into account the location of land. c Since the location of land is determinative of the value of the potential use of the land, the criteria of classifying the categories according to the area I in which the property falls has a direct . ' nexus to the potential value of the land. The Schedule prescribes different classes according to the municipal area or the rural D area that the parcel of land is situated. Within the categories of various municipal areas/village areas, the distance of the property from the center of municipal area is also taken into account. Different rates for different areas are prescribed: As such, the estimated appreciation of value is assessed on the E^{basis of the location of the property which is the determinative} factor for this purpose. The said criteria are clearly directly related to the development policies of the government to amalgamate rural holdings falling within and/or outside the municipal areas of various cities. The classification of various F^{citiesisagain determined as per the valuesof landinthese} cities, the extent of population of these cities, and the character of cities. Thus, the important cities of the State are classified differently from the smaller cities and towns, as also according to their population. Further, the villages are also classified G^{differently, and the rate for levying premium for conversion is} accordingly prescribed. As such, the schedule is based on a reasonable differentia after taking into account relevant factors for this purpose, and is thus non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory. As such, neitherthe rule 14 nor the Schedule prescribed therein is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

r

'\

~

-

-1' • !""'

H

..,,

_.

RAJ HOMES PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER v. STATE 841 OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

¶313

,

¶314

''1

¶315

Learned counsel for the State also submitted that the A requirement of classifying various cities, towns and villages according to rational criteria is also based on the requirement of having uniformity of levies in the whole of the State, which is the very primary object of the Revenue Code. Learned counsel for the State submitted that in the instant case, the legislature has not B exceeded its jurisdiction in legislating the impugned rule 14 and the scheduled there!o. Rule 14 and schedule thereto are not arbitrary and have a direct nexus with the objective still to be achieved.

¶316

Learned counsel for the State submitted. that in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court was^c justified in arriving at the conclusion that the rule which has been assailed on the ground that the rule making authority has gone beyond the statute is totally without any basis or foundation. Learned counsel further submitted that the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the classification made D therein neither suffers from absence of intelligible differentia ' nor does it invite the wrath of equality clause as engrafted under ·~ At1icle 14 of the Constitution. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the Division Bench was justified in concluding that the respondent was fully empowered to the premium on E conversion of land. Learned counsel. for the respondent also submitted that the impugned judgment has correctly analysed and interpreted the various provisions of the Revenue Code and hence no interference is warranted by this court.

¶317

E

¶318

F

¶319

We have carefully perused the pleadings; impugnedjudgment and the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and respondent State of Madhya Pradesh.

-I

-A, ' -.i.., i

Careful analysis of the facts and reasons of the Revenue Code lead to the following conclusions:-

¶324

(I) The State Government enjoys ample powers of not only to fix land revenue rates or to re-fix them upon conversion/diversion of the land for another use but also charges premium upon diversion of land for another use.

G

H

[2008} 12 S.C.R.

842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶329

t

¶330

A (II) The premium is one time charge for diversion of land for better land use under rule 14 of the Code. Rule 13 prescribes when land is assessed for any non-agricultural purpose is diverted to any agriculture purpose, no premium shall be imposed under section

¶331

B 59(5). The scheme of the Act clearly reveals that the premium is charged only when land use is converted for betterment.· In this view of the matter, the State is fully justified in charging the premium and the same is in consonancewith the spirit, objects and reasons of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.

¶332

A

¶333

c

¶334

On careful analysis of the entire scheme of the Act and the provisions of the Code it cannot be said that rule 14 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶335

(Ill) ·. The classification of various cities in the State is D determined as per the values of land in different cities, the extent of population of those cities and the character of those cities. The important cities of the State are classified differently from smaller cities and . towns as also according to their population. Similarly, E villages are also classified differently and rate of levying premium for conversion is accordingly preschbed. The Schedule is based on reasonable differentia taking into account relevant factors for the . purpose and it cannot be called arbitrary or F .. discriminatory.

¶336

In view of our aforesaid findings these appeals filed by the appellants being devoid of any merit are accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties G are directed to bear their own costs.

¶337

--\

¶338

K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.

Raj Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Great Offshore Ltd. versus Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company

K.K. Saravana Babu versus State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

M.K. Palia & Sons Pvt. Ltd. versus Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Another

Shantidevi Kamaleshkumar Yadav versus State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hemaji Waghaji Jat versus Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Others