Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bharatbhai Harjibhai Patel on 27 June, 2023
Bench: A.J.Desai, Biren Vaishnav
C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 422 of 2020
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16716 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 422 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 750 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16441 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 750 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16441 of 2018
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 457 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20280 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 457 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20280 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
Page 1 of 13
Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:32:13 IST 2023
C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHARATBHAI HARJIBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.KRUTIK PARIKH, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR AR THACKER, ADVOCATE with MR.SHIVANG THACKER (888) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 27/06/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)
1. By way of the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the State of Gujarat through the Secretary, Revenue Department, the Superintendent of Stamp and Inspector General of Registration, the Collector, Kutch and the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty, have challenged oral judgement dated 17.10.2019 rendered in Special Civil Application No.16716 of 2018, oral judgement dated Page 2 of 13 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:32:13 IST 2023 C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023 23.12.2019 rendered in Special Civil Application No.20280 of 2018 and oral judgement dated 17.10.2019 rendered in Special Civil Application No.16441 of 2018, by which the learned Single Judge has accepted the petitions filed by the present respondents by directing the appellant no.2 to implement the recommendation made by the District Level Committee in connection with, so far as petitioners of Special Civil Application No.16716 of 2018 are concerned, Revenue Survey Nos.309 paiki 1, 294/1 and 294/2 belonging to original petitioner no.1, land bearing revenue survey nos.284/2, 284/4, 285/p/2, 781 paiki P/36/2 belonging to original petitioner no.2 and land bearing revenue survey nos.214/1, 224/2, 213, 311/1 belonging to original petitioner no.3 of village Khedoi, so far as petitioners of Special Civil Application No.20280 of 2018 are concerned, land bearing Page 3 of 13 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:32:13 IST 2023 C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023 Survey Nos.252p belonging to original petitioner no.1, land bearing revenue survey no.10 belonging to original petitioner no.2, land bearing revenue survey no.13 belonging to original petitioner no.3 and land bearing revenue survey no.250p belonging to original petitioner no.4 of village Shinai, Taluka:Ghandhidham, District:Kutch, and so far as petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16441 of 2018 is concerned, land bearing Survey Nos.478 and 479 of Village:Bhuj-Sim, Taluka:Bhuj, to show the correct jantri rates at par with other respondents of the same village.
2. Appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 27.08.2020. In response to notice issued by this Court, the respondents have appeared through learned advocate Mr.A.R.Thacker. Page 4 of 13 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:32:13 IST 2023 C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
3. During the pendency of the present appeal, additional affidavit has been filed by appellant no.2 on behalf of office of Superintendent of Stamps, to which, rejoinder has been filed.
4. Short facts arising are as under.
5. That the petitioners are residents of three different villages viz. Khedoi, Shinai and Bhuj. To have their agricultural land located on national highway passing through the village.
6. Under the Stamp Act, the State of Gujarat publishing the Rights of land throughout the State. The same register is known as 'Jantri' which reflects the rate of the land as per the geographical location of the immovable property.
7. The State of Gujarat periodically revises Jantri rate, accordingly, a Jantri was declared in the year 2011 for fixing the price of the land in the Page 5 of 13 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:32:13 IST 2023 C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023 entire State of Gujarat. Accordingly, the jantri rate was also prescribed for the above referred villages.
8. Some of the residents of the aforesaid villages sought correction in the Jantri rate. The Committee which was formed under the Government Resolutions sent the corrected rate of different survey numbers of the aforesaid villages. The same was accepted by the State Authorities. The lands of the present respondents were not included in the corrected Jantri rate and therefore they made the representation for correcting the Jantri rate and at par with the rates of the same villages. The Committee consisting of the various officers including District Collector who is also appellant before this Court had opined that corrections are required to be made in the Jantri rate. The Page 6 of 13 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:32:13 IST 2023 C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023 Superintendent rejected the same by communication dated 03.08.2018 so far as LPA Nos.422 of 2020 and 750 of 2020 are concerned, and by communication dated 04.08.2018 so far as LPA No.457 of 2020 is concerned.
9. Being aggrieved with the same decision, the petition came to be filed.
10. The learned Single Judge after considering various Government Resolutions accepted the petition and directed as stated herein above.
11. Mr.Krutik Parikh learned AGP would submit that the learned Single Judge has committed error in accepting the petition and directing the authorities to make correction. He would submit that the learned Single Judge has wrongly relied upon resolutions dated 21.09.2010 and 31.03.2011. He would submit that the Page 7 of 13 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:32:13 IST 2023 C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023 Committee shall be constituted only for rate mentioned in the Jantri. However, the Committee cannot decide the rate and such opinion is given would not be binding to the authority established under the Bombay Stamp Act.
12. He would submit that the land of the same village may fetch different value and the same would depend upon the location of the land and therefore all the lands of the same village cannot be treated at par and therefore the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the petitions.
13. He would submit that the same decision which was accepted by the Stamp Authorities in the year 2016 with regard to the land, is not binding and therefore the authority may reject the recommendation made by the Committee. Page 8 of 13 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:32:13 IST 2023 C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023 Hence, the appeals are required to be allowed. He therefore would submit that the matters are required to be remanded to the appellant no.2 herein - the Superintendent of Stamp and Inspector General of Registration for consideration afresh.
14. Learned advocate Mr.A.R.Thacker appearing for the respondents has supported the decision of the learned Single Judge.
15. By taking us through the various documents, he would submit that the Committee which has been established pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2010, is required to be read with another resolution dated 31.03.2011. He would submit that the present respondents approached the authority for correction in the entry since similarly situated residents of aforesaid villages got approval from appellant Page 9 of 13 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:32:13 IST 2023 C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023 no.2 about the location of the lands. By taking us through the recommendations by the Committee, he would submit that the lands are of the similar nature of the village and therefore, the allegations are required to be made with regard to Jantri rate.
16. He would further submit that the communication dated 03.08.2018 does not disclose any reason for rejecting the recommendation of the Committee. By taking us through the same order, he would submit that the arguments advanced by the learned AGP before this Court are not at all reflected from the said order. He would further submit that by taking us through the details of a report which is produced along with the petition and a communication dated 22.04.2016 which refers to the corrected rate of the lands belong to the aforesaid villages, the Page 10 of 13 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:32:13 IST 2023 C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023 petitioner had sought similar Jantri rate which was accepted by the Stamp Authority and as requested, the authority to mention the Jantri rate with regard to their land only which has been rightly accepted by the learned Single Judge.
17. He therefore would submit that the appeal be dismissed.
18. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
19. By Government Resolution dated 21.09.2010, it was resolved that if there is a mistake in Jantri rate or mistake in data entry etc. a Committee consisting of the District Collector, District Development Officer, Town Planning Officer, Deputy Collector (Stamp Duty), is empowered to correct the same and the same is required to be Page 11 of 13 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:32:13 IST 2023 C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023 carry out forthwith. Similar is the resolution dated 31.03.2011. In the present case, when an issue was raised by the present respondent about correcting the data entry since similarly situated land owners, Jantri rate was approved by the Committee and accepted by the Stamp Officer, the Committee has opined that corrections are required to be made in the Jantri rates. One of the members who has recommend the said rates, is indirectly challenging his own order. However, we would not like to comment on this issue.
20. We have also gone through a communication dated 22.04.2016, by which, a particular amount has been assigned as Jantri rate for a particular land which is for a village of the present respondents are residing.
Page 12 of 13 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:32:13 IST 2023 C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
21. The Committee has opined to give the same rate which has been accepted by the learned Single Judge which does not call for any interference.
22. Apart from the technicalities, we are of the firm view that all persons who are similarly situated are required to be treated at par, which has been ordered by the learned Single Judge and which is hereby affirmed.
23. In view of the above, all these appeals are hereby dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Connected Civil Application will also not survive and they are also disposed of.
(A.J.DESAI, ACJ) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J) ANKIT SHAH Page 13 of 13 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:32:13 IST 2023