Gujarat High Court
Kanjibhai Abjibhai Patel & 6 vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 11 October, 2007
Author: R.M.Doshit
Bench: R.M.Doshit
SCA/333/1997 1/7 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 333 of 1997
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
=========================================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
1 to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
3 of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the
4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made
thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
KANJIBHAI ABJIBHAI PATEL & 6 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR ANSHIN H DESAI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 7.
MS MINI NAIR, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 5.
=========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
Date : 11/10/2007
ORAL JUDGMENT
The petitioners nos.6 and 7 are the vendors of the land in question and the petitioners nos.1 to 5 are the purchasers of the said land from the HC-NIC Page 1 of 7 Created On Wed Jul 13 02:19:27 IST 2016 SCA/333/1997 2/7 JUDGMENT respondents nos.6 and 7. The petitioners challenge the action of the State Government in fixing the land price at Rs.925=00 per sq.meter as on 25 th April, 1995 and the order dated 21st January, 1995 calling upon the petitioners to pay premium at at the rate of 75% of the unearned profit.
By order dated 4th June, 1970 made by the District Collector, Junagadh, 4555.6 sq.yards of the land Survey No.369/1 situated at Veraval was granted to one Jamnadas Davda for establishment of an industry on the terms and conditions contained in the Government Resolutions dated 17th October, 1947 and 7th August, 1956. The Resolution dated 17 th October, 1947 was issued by the then Government of Bombay in respect of the lands sold at concessional rates. The said Resolution was amended by the Resolution dated 7th August, 1956. According to the terms and conditions of the grant, the land was impartible and inalienable without the previous permission of the State Government. In case of such permission, the State Government would be entitled to a premium equivalent to 50% of the unearned profit. In the year HC-NIC Page 2 of 7 Created On Wed Jul 13 02:19:27 IST 2016 SCA/333/1997 3/7 JUDGMENT 1977 the aforesaid Jamnadas Davda sold the disputed land to the petitioners nos.6 and 7. At the relevant time, premium equivalent to 50% of the unearned profit was paid to the Government. The petitioners nos.6 and 7, after obtaining permission from the State Government, sold the said land to the petitioners nos.1 to 5 by registered sale deed dated 14th July, 1995. By order dated 25 th April, 1995, the District Collector, Junagadh granted permission to transfer the disputed land to the petitioners nos.1 to 5. According to the said permission, the price of the said land as on 14th July, 1993 was Rs.325=00 per sq.meter. The applicant was liable to pay premium of 75% of the unearned profit calculated at that rate less Rs.18,222=50 paid to the State Government earlier. Accordingly, the premium was calculated at Rs.9,15,020=65. The said order further states that the amount of premium would be determined on the basis of the price fixed by the Deputy Town Planner, Junagadh.
I am informed that the petitioners did pay the said sum of Rs.9,15,020=65 to the State Government.
HC-NIC Page 3 of 7 Created On Wed Jul 13 02:19:27 IST 2016
SCA/333/1997 4/7 JUDGMENT
The said order was followed by the Communication
dated 18th November, 1996 informing the petitioners that the land price was determined at Rs.925=00 per sq.meter by the Deputy Town Planner. The aforesaid order dated 25th April, 1995 and the Communication dated 18th November, 1996 are under challenge before this Court.
Mr.Desai has submitted that once the Town Planner had determined the price of the land at Rs.325=00 per sq.meter, the Deputy Town Planner had no authority to redetermine the same at Rs.925=00 per sq.meter, almost three times the price fixed by the Town Planner. He has further submitted that in any view of the matter, the petitioners have not been given opportunity of hearing in respect of the determination of the price of the disputed land. He has further submitted that in view of the terms of the grant and the above referred Resolutions of 1947 and 1956, the grantee was liable to pay premium at the rate of 50% of the unearned profit. Whereas, in the present case, the petitioners have been called upon to pay 75% of such profit.
HC-NIC Page 4 of 7 Created On Wed Jul 13 02:19:27 IST 2016
SCA/333/1997 5/7 JUDGMENT
The petition is contested by Ms.Nair. One Shri Valjibhai Dahyabhai Waghela, Senior Town Planner has filed affidavit stating that the price of Rs.325=00 per sq.meter and Rs.925=00 per sq.meter was of different dates i.e. the first one was the price prevalent in the month of July, 1993 and the later one was the price prevalent in the month of April, 1995. He has stated that the valuation report was prepared "after careful consideration of the site situation, sales statistics, purposes of valuation, development in the vicinity and other principles of valuation".
As to the charge of premium at the rate of 75% of the unearned profit, no explanation has come- forth. In absence of any explanation, I am of the opinion that the State Government could not have charged premium at a rate higher than the agreed rate i.e. 50% of the unearned profit in accordance with the terms of the grant.
As to the fixation of the price at Rs.925=00 per sq.meter, it should be noted that the price of HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Wed Jul 13 02:19:27 IST 2016 SCA/333/1997 6/7 JUDGMENT Rs.325=00 per sq.meter was determined in the year 1993 which may not reflect the prevalent price in the month of April/July, 1995. Besides, the permission dated 25th April, 1995 was granted subject to the determination of price by the Deputy Town Planner. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioners to contend that the Deputy Town Planner had no authority to determine the price prevalent in April or July, 1995. What was the prevalent price at that time is not a question which this Court will answer. As stated by the Deputy Town Planner, the valuation was made after careful consideration of the relevant factors. Nevertheless, if the petitioners have a different version about the prevalent price of the disputed land, the petitioners shall be at liberty to satisfy the concerned authority i.e. the Deputy Town Planner, by producing relevant materials.
In above view of the matter, the petition is partly allowed. The petitioners will be at liberty to make a representation in respect of the valuation of the disputed land within a period of one month from today. The petitioners may produce the relevant HC-NIC Page 6 of 7 Created On Wed Jul 13 02:19:27 IST 2016 SCA/333/1997 7/7 JUDGMENT materials in support of their claim. If such representation is made, the Deputy Town Planner, Junagadh will consider and decide the same within two months from the receipt of the representation after giving opportunity of hearing to one of the petitioners as the representative of the petitioners. The Deputy Town Planner will make a speaking order to determine the value of the disputed land taking into consideration the materials produced by the petitioners. The valuation made by the Deputy Town Planner, after receipt of the representation, shall be final and be binding to the petitioners. The District Collector, Junagadh will modify the order dated 25th April, 1995 to charge premium at the rate of 50% of the unearned profit calculated on the basis of the valuation made by the Deputy Town Planner in accordance with this order. The petitioners will be liable to pay the deficit in premium, within the time that may be specified. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The parties will bear their own cost. Interim relief stands vacated.
(Ms. R.M.Doshit, J.) /moin HC-NIC Page 7 of 7 Created On Wed Jul 13 02:19:27 IST 2016