1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2707 OF 2005
Shashikant Ramdas Wadhokar,
aged - Adult, occupation -
Agriculturist, r/o Fuley Nagar,
Shegaon, District - Buldhana. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The Tahsildar,
Shegaon, District - Buldhana.
2. Kamlalkar s/o Keshaorao
Shegokar.
3. Smt. Parvatibai w/o Keshaorao
Shegokar ... DELETED
4. Vasant s/o Baburao Shendge.
All residents of Shegaon,
District - Buldhana. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri D.M. Kale, AGP for respondent No. 1.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DECEMBER 08, 2009.
::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:56:58 ::: 2ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard Shri Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kale, learned AGP for respondent No.1. Nobody has appeared for respondents No.2 & 4.
2. By the impugned order / communication dated 15.02.2005, Respondent No.1 has called upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.90,750/- as 50% of the amount required to regularize the sale of land in his favour. The land is part of survey No. 69/3, ad measuring 1 Hectare and 21R and it is the contention of Respondent No.1 that said land was allotted under Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, to Kamlalkar Keshaorao Shegokar and Smt. Parvatibai Keshaorao Shegokar. The land, therefore, could not have been sold and if the sale was to be effected, previous permission of State Government was essential.
3. Shri Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner states ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:56:58 ::: 3 that the petitioner is not the first purchaser of that land. He points out that in 7/12 extracts for the year 1993-94, the land was recorded in the name of Kamlalkar and Parvatibai in Bhumiswami rights and revenue records never disclosed that it was allotted to them under the State Ceiling Act. Kamlakar and Parvatibai sold this land to one Vasant Baburao Shendge on 05.06.1995 by registered sale deed. The petitioner purchased this land from said Vasant vide registered sale deed dated 07.02.1996. The petitioner received notice from the respondents in this respect and then he got knowledge of the irregularity. In terms of provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as Ceiling Act) the State Government has issued revised rules and as per those revised rules, for such purchases, the petitioner was expected to deposit 50% of the unearned income to State Government. As per said rule, the petitioner gave undertaking and his sale has been regularized. Shri Saboo, learned counsel points out that in stead of finding out market value as on 07.02.1996, Respondent No.1 has determined market value prevailing in 2004 and on ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:56:58 ::: 4 that basis the unearned income of 50%, i.e. amount of Rs.
90,750/- is being demanded from the petitioner. He argues that the exercise is contrary to revised rules as issued in 2001 and in any case, the said amount ought to have been apportioned between the previous purchaser Shri Shendge and the original allottees viz., Kamlakar and Parvatibai.
4. The learned AGP in his arguments has pointed out that original allottee was father of Kamlakar, i.e. Keshaorao Motiram Shegokar. He states that those lands were distributed to the said allottee under Section 27 of the Ceiling Act and could not have been sold. As the lands were found to have been sold illegally, without permission of State Government, in terms of 2001 Rules, Respondent No.2 has taken action. He further contends that as sale deed has been regularized in 2004, market price prevailing in 2004 has been rightly looked into.
5. The provisions of revised rules issued on 19.10.2001 and framed under Ceiling Act, 1961, use the word current ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:56:58 ::: 5 market value. Thus, the difference between current market value and the purchase price has been treated as unearned income and 50% thereof is payable to State Government for seeking approval to said transfer. The petitioner has in his reply dated 24.12.2004 filed before Respondent No.1 and in his subsequent application dated 02.01.2006, offered to pay 50% of the unearned income as calculated by him i.e. Rs.13,250/- with Respondent No.1. This Court has by interim orders dated 17.06.2008 while issuing rule in the matter, permitted the petitioner to deposit that amount. Accordingly, the petitioner has deposited said amount.
6. I find that the petitioner was not heard. Before arriving at the current market value prevailing in 2004 or then on 07.12.1996 and what should be 50% amount could have been and should have been decided by Respondent No.1 after hearing the petitioner. As that has not been been done, I find that the impugned demand dated 15.02.2005 is unsustainable. The same is, therefore, quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:56:58 ::: 6 to hear the petitioner on said aspect and to determine 50% amount of unearned income recoverable from him as per law.
The said exercise be completed as early as possible and in any case by 28th February 2010.
7. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE ******* *GS.
::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:56:58 :::