Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. On the other hand, according to the learned AGP, if the Collector is not satisfied then after giving an opportunity of being heard shall refuse certificate to the person in question and whereas upon such refusal, the sale of land to the purchaser in question, would be deemed to be in contravention of Section 63AA. Most importantly, learned AGP would emphasize on Clause 3d (i) of Section 63AA and would submit that the said provision inter alia envisages that upon refusal to issue a certificate by a Collector then the purchaser may file an appeal to the State Government or such officer as having been authorized by the State Government. Learned AGP would submit that the application of the present petitioner having been rejected, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have preferred an appeal before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department and having not preferred an appeal, it was not open for the Collector to have considered the application preferred by the present petitioner afresh. Thus, submitting learned AGP, would request this Court not to interfere in the impugned order.

10. To this Court, it would appear that the Collector is abrogating to himself, the powers of grant of certificate under Section 63AA of the Tenancy Act, as being a quasi-judicial power. To this Court, a fair reading of Section 63AA does not in any manner reveal that the Collector is required to consider such application in any other manner than as an administrative function. Perusal of Section 63AA inter alia reveals that a purchaser could purchase or could enter into an agreement for sale of an agricultural land, irrespective of the provisions of subsection 1 of Section 65B of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, if the land is to be used by the person in question for a bona fide industrial purpose. The provisions also lays down certain exceptions to the normal Rules i.e. the land should not be situated within urban agglomeration as described under ULC Act, that the area of land should not exceed 10 hectares and whereas it is mentioned that even if it is exceeding 10 hectare then the permission of the Industries Commissioner, Gujarat State would be required to be obtained. It is also required to be stated that the total area of land should not exceed four times the area on which the construction for bona fide industrial purpose is NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined proposed to be made by the purchaser. The statute also provides that the four times ceiling would not be taken into account for the purpose of land, which may be required to be used for purpose of controlling pollution or which may be used for complying with any law which would be in force at that time. The Section also requires that upon purchase of land, the purchaser would intimate to the Collector within a period of 30 days about the land having been purchased for bona fide industrial purpose and whereas a notice of such purchase would also be sent to the Collector. The provisions envisage that in case the purchaser fails to send the notice and other particulars to the Collector, then within the prescribed period the purchaser is liable to pay fine, which is prescribed in Section itself. The section further prescribes that upon the Collector receiving the notice of purchase of land for bona fide industrial purpose by purchaser, then the Collector is required to satisfy that the lands are validly purchased for a bona fide industrial purpose in conformity with the provision of Sub-section 1, which is described in brief hereinabove and whereas upon such satisfaction being arrived, the certificate shall be issued in favour of the purchaser. It is also envisaged that the Collector, if not satisfied that the land was purchased for bona fide industrial purpose, then the Collector after giving an opportunity to the purchaser, refused to issue such certificate and upon such refusal, the transaction would be deemed to be in contravention of Section 63 of the Act. Furthermore, the Section also envisages the aspect with regard to the purchaser having the right to file an appeal before the State Government or any officer as may be notified by the State Government before whom an appeal could be filed against the order of Collector in refusing grant of certificate for bona fide industrial purpose.

11. A perusal of the overview of Section 63AA as observed hereinabove is to appreciate the scope and ambit of the powers, which are to be exercised by the Collector. To this Court said power does not in any manner NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined reflect any adjudicatory process to be entered into by the Collector to deem that the power exercised by the Collector under Section 63AA, is a quasi- judicial power. As noted hereinabove, the Collector is only exercising administrative function inasmuch as the Collector is required to satisfy himself as required under the provisions of Section and whereas no further rights of the parties are to be decided by the Collector, while considering an application under Section 63AA of the Tenancy Act. Thus, the contention on the part of the learned AGP, based upon an affidavit that power being exercised under Section 63AA is a quasi-judicial power, does not appear to be in consonance with the provisions of the Act and therefore, such contention is not countenance.

13. Correlating the above observation with the facts of the case, it would appear that vide an order dated 25.12.2023, the Collector had consigned the application preferred by the petitioner to file, more particularly noting that a requirement of certificate by DIC, Vadodara, was not placed by the present petitioner along with the application. Thereupon to this Court it was always open for the petitioner to have applied for grant of certificate for bona fide industrial purpose afresh after fulfilling order or after removing defect / lacuna. This Court is not able to accept the contention made on behalf of learned AGP that Section 63AA (d)(i) would have to be read to mean that upon rejection of any application under Section 63AA by the Collector, then the Collector loses his powers to consider any application afresh. Such an interpretation is not made out, however, liberally, this Court reads the Section in question rather as noted hereinabove, the section only lays down appellate of body where an aggrieved purchaser could approach in case the Collector rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of certificate of bona fide industrial purpose.