Gujarat High Court
Kantilal Ramswarup Shah vs Secretary Revenue Department ... on 24 June, 2016
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
C/SCA/13504/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13504 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
==========================================================
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 of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
KANTILAL RAMSWARUP SHAH....Petitioner(s)
Versus
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT (APPEALS) & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MM SAIYED, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VENUGOPAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Date : 24/06/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 5
HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Wed Jun 29 01:50:09 IST 2016 C/SCA/13504/2014 JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition, challenging the order dated 30th September, 2006 (Annexure-E) passed by the respondent No.2 Collector and the order dated 20th June, 2014 (Annexure-G) passed by the respondent No.1 S.S.R.D.
2. In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner was allotted the land bearing Survey No.259 paiki admeasuring 1 hectare 34 Are and 19 sq. mtr., of the Village Garudeshwar, District Nandod, for the purpose of excavation of black trap stone for five years, as per the lease deed dated 17.5.1996. The said lease deed came to be renewed for a period of ten years on 19.9.2001 (Annexure-A), pursuant to the order of renewal passed by the Collector, Narmada vide the order at Annexure-B. It further appears that the respondent No.2 Collector in the year 2006 issued show-cause notices to various land owners including the petitioner in respect of recovery of conversion tax and special cess for using the lands for non-agricultural purpose. The Collector thereafter passed the impugned order dated 30th September, 2006 (Annexure-E) under Section 67A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), calling upon the petitioner to pay the conversion tax to the tune of Rs.3,34,131/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred Revision Petition before the respondent No.1 Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Wed Jun 29 01:50:09 IST 2016 C/SCA/13504/2014 JUDGMENT under Section 211 of the Code. The said Revision Petition came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 20.6.2014 (Annexure-G). Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Saiyed submitted that the petitioner was allotted the land in question vide the lease deed executed in the year 1996, subject to the conditions mentioned therein, under the provisions of the Gujarat Mines and Mineral Rules, 1966 and, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay any conversion tax as contemplated under Section 67A of the Code, apart from the fact, that no such tax was asked to be paid while executing the lease deed in the year 1996 and also at the time of renewal of the said lease deed in the year 2001 for ten years. According to him, all of a sudden the respondent No.2 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner as the revenue of the Government had gone down as transpiring from the impugned order itself passed by the Collector.
4. However, the learned AGP, placing reliance on the provisions of Section 67A of the Code read with the conditions mentioned in the lease deed, submitted that the petitioner had failed to pay the conversion tax though the lad was being used for non-agricultural purpose, and therefore, he was liable to pay the said conversion tax as per the order of the Collector.
5. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the land in question was allotted to the petitioner Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Wed Jun 29 01:50:09 IST 2016 C/SCA/13504/2014 JUDGMENT in the year 1996 by the Collector, by executing the lease deed under the provisions contained in the Gujarat Mines and Mineral Rules, 1966. It is also not disputed that there was no condition in the original lease deed executed in the year 1996 as well as in the lease deed renewed in the year 2001 to the effect that the petitioner was liable to pay the conversion tax as contemplated under Section 67A of the Code. On the contrary, as transpiring from the conditions mentioned in the lease deed (Annexure-A), granting of the said land was not to be construed as bar of any of the Rules i.e. 67, 68, 69 and 70 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules. The learned AGP has failed to point out as to under which provision of Section 67A, the Collector had called upon the petitioner to pay the conversion tax. When the land was allotted to the petitioner by the competent Authority under the Gujarat Mines and Mineral Rules, 1966 for specific purpose of removing black trap stones, there was no question of the petitioner applying to the Collector for using the land for non-agricultural purpose, which would entail payment of conversion tax under Section 67A of the Code. The learned AGP has fairly submitted that as such there was no condition imposed in the lease deed for the payment of conversion tax at the time of allotment of land in the year 1996 and even while renewing the said lease in the year 2001.
6. Under the circumstances, the impugned order Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Wed Jun 29 01:50:09 IST 2016 C/SCA/13504/2014 JUDGMENT passed by the Collector for the recovery of the conversion tax under Section 67A of the Code, on the lease deed executed under the provisions contained in Gujarat Mines and Mineral Rules, 1966, being illegal, deserves to be quashed and set aside. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.1, mechanically confirming the said order of the respondent No.2 Collector also deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. In that view of the matter, both the impugned orders being illegal are quashed and set aside. The petition stands allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.) vinod Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Wed Jun 29 01:50:09 IST 2016