Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(emphasis supplied)

6. Perusal of the relevant record and particularly the original file of the proceedings before the Additional Collector-II, South Goa Distt., Margao, Goa reveals that the Application filed by Shri Satyawan B. Prabhudessai was for conversion of 2500 sq. mtrs. area out of land Survey No. 25/2 in order to install a petrol filling station. We have also noticed that although the Sanad was granted, initially, for conversion of the land to residential use, yet the conversion fees was charged for conversion of the land from agricultural use to commercial use. It is obvious that there is patent error committed by the Counsel and/or the Applicant , Shri Satyawan B. Prabhudessai in their failure to place on record the amended Sanad (Permission) which purportedly allowed conversion of land, S. No. 25/2, to the extent of 2500 sq. mtr. from agricultural use to commercial use. It appears that the Additional Collector rectified the mistake by issuing corrigendum on 08.04.2008.

7. From the record it is manifestly clear that within a few days of issuance of the Sanad the error was corrected by the Additional Collector-II, South Goa Distt., Margao. The only error on face of the record is that Shri Satyawan B. Prabhudessai and his Counsel did not take care to place on record the corrigendum dated 08.04.2008 whereby the words "residential use only" were directed to be read as "commercial use only". We have also noticed from the office file of the Additional Collector-II, South Goa Distt., Margao that the conversion fees for conversion of agricultural land of the relevant category measuring 2500 sq. mtrs. to commercial use was @ Rs. 40/- per sq. mtr. and as such conversion fees of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. one lakh only) had been recovered from Shri Satyawan B. Prabhudessai. The error is apparent on the face of record and as such it will have to be said that the Sanad was issued for conversion of agricultural land Survey No. 25/2 to commercial use and not for residential use. Obviously, the observation of this Tribunal that the conversion of land was not specifically permitted for any commercial purpose will have to be deleted from the paragraph 26 of the judgment under review. However, the observation of this Tribunal that the area of 18000 sq. mtrs. was bulldozed instead of converting the area of 2500 sq. mtrs. for commercial use, out of land Survey No. 25/2, is based upon factual finding and need not be corrected. In other words, we do not find it necessary to allow the review in the context of final order indicated in paragraph 28 of the judgment under review to the extent it relates to clearance of excessive area beyond terms of the Sanad.