Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of as not pressed."

9. It appears the Deputy Collector initiated the proceedings for breach of section 73AA of the Code after the order passed by the Collector on 29.12.2011 and issued notice upon the C/SCA/12131/2015 JUDGMENT petitioners. The petitioners participated in the proceedings. The Deputy Collector after considering the submissions made by the petitioners held that there is a breach of provision of section 73AA of the Code and as the petitioners did not get the previous sanction of the Collector before the occupancy rights are transferred as it is evident from the record that the sale deed was executed on 20.06.1981 after the Collector granted the permission on 18.06.1981. The Deputy Collector under section 73AA (4)(b) of the Code passed an order dated 30.09.2013 holding that the transaction entered into by the petitioners was void and the land in question would vest in State Government free from all encumbrances and further levied penalty of Rs. 12,80,880/- under section 73AA(7) of the Code.

18. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Pathak submitted that on bare perusal of section 73AA of the Code and taking into consideration the undisputed fact that the sale deed executed on 20.06.1981 was admittedly without getting previous sanction from the Collector under section 73AA of the Code and as such, there is a breach of provision of section 73AA (1) of the Code and there is concurrent findings of fact arrived at by all the three authorities that the transaction entered into by the petitioners is a void transaction and consequential action is taken by the authority to vest the land in question in the State Government free from all encumbrances and also the penalty was levied upon the petitioners under section 73AA (7) of the Code. Learned AGP Ms. Pathak therefore, submitted that no intervention of this Court may be made while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

C/SCA/12131/2015 JUDGMENT

19. With regard to the contention raised by the petitioners that the authorities have initiated the proceedings under section 73AA of the Code after a lapse of 31 years is concerned, it was submitted that the proceedings with regard to the revenue entries were continuing upto 2011. The Revenue Authorities never certified the entry of sale document executed in favour of the petitioners for want of permission under section 73AA of the Code and as such the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners, with regard to delay in initiation of the proceedings on the ground that the same were not taken up within reasonable period of time, is not tenable in law. In support of such submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Orissa and other vs. Brundaban Sharma and anr reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249 wherein the Apex Court held that when a revisional power was conferred to effectuate a purpose, it is to be exercised in a reasonable manner which inheres the concept of its exercise within reasonable time. However, length of time depends on the factual scenario in a given case and absence of limitation is assurance to exercise the power when the caution or circumspection to effectuate the purpose of the Act, or to prevent miscarriage of justice or violation of the provisions of the Act, misuse or abuse of the power by the lower authorities for fraud or suppression. It was therefore submitted that here there is a case of violation of the provisions of the Act and such concept of reasonable time would not be applicable as there is no limitation prescribed in section 73AA(4) of the C/SCA/12131/2015 JUDGMENT Code as Collector can initiate suo motu proceedings at any time for breach of section 73AA(1) of the Code. It was therefore, submitted by the learned AGP Ms. Pathak that the contention of the petitioners that proceedings were not initiated within reasonable time is liable to be rejected.

32. Similarly, the other decisions relied on by the petitioners with regard to the taking action within reasonable time is concerned, it is pertinent to note that all the three decisions are C/SCA/12131/2015 JUDGMENT given with respect to the provisions of section 84C and section 79A of the Code. With regard to the decision of the Division Bench in case of Sonkiben Mankabhai Vasava vs. Ishwarbhai Nagjibhai Talpadakoli (Deed) Through Heirs (supra), it is pertinent to note that in the facts of the said case, the transaction took place in the year 1967 when the section 73AA was not on statute. In that context, the Division bench held that there was a gross delay on the part of the authorities in exercising suo motu powers almost after 30 years after 73AA of the Code. When the provisions of section 73AA of the Code are not applicable, the question of delay considered by the Court would not be applicable in the facts of the case. Moreover, in the facts of the said case, the appellant Sonkiben Mankabhai Vasava vs. Ishwarbhai Nagjibhai Talpadakoli (Deed) Through Heirs (supra) was a widow of the original owner in whose lifetime the transaction was never questioned. Whereas, in the facts of the case, the petitioners were aware that they were required to obtain the permission under section 73AA of the Code, as per the condition No. 4 stipulated by the Collector in the order dated 18.06.1981 granting permission to sale the sale the land under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 by levy of premium of 50% of the market value determined at Rs. 5000/- at the relevant time which was paid by the petitioners, however, no permission under section 73AA of Code was obtained prior to execution of the sale deed. It appears that the petitioners as well as the original owners were under the impression that once the C/SCA/12131/2015 JUDGMENT permission of non-agriculture is granted by the Collector, they can obtain permission under section 73AA afterwards as per the stipulated condition No. 4 in the order granting permission. However, such belief of the petitioners cannot be considered in view of the provisions of the Act which provides for previous sanction of the Collector under section 73AA of the Code prior to transfer of occupancy rights. As the petitioners have not raised any contention with regard to non applicability of section 73AA of the Code in view of the applicability of the Town Planning Scheme is concerned, the decision relied upon by the learned AGP Ms. Pathak are not dealt with in detail as there is no dispute on the proposition laid down by the Division Bench of this Court that the provisions of the Code would be applicable even when the Town Planning Scheme is in force or sanctioned.