1 J-WP-1630-15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1630 OF 2015
Smt. Manjulabai Ramaji Ganvir,
Aged about : 62 years,
Occ - Agriculturist,
R/o Village Champa,
Post Champa, Tahasil - Umred,
District - Nagpur. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur,
Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. The Collector,
Nagpur District,
Nagpur Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Umrer Tahasil - Umrer,
Dist. Nagpur.
5. The Tahasildar Umrer,
Tahasil - Umrer,
Dist. Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. R. S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. Mrunal Naik, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :-
11/07/2017.
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:53:58 :::
2 J-WP-1630-15.odt ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Collector, Nagpur dated 17/01/2015 granting permission to the petitioner to sell the land admeasuring 0.24 HR in Survey No.55 of Mouza Champa, Tq. Umred, subject to payment of a sum of Rs.10,20,000/- to the Government as unearned income. By seeking to amend the writ petition, the petitioner has also sought to challenge the Government Resolution dated 29th May, 2006 that provides for fixation of the amount payable to the Government as unearned income on the basis of the value of the land as per the ready reckoner, as on the date on which the permission to sell the land is granted.
The father of the petitioner was allotted land admeasuring 0.24 HR in Umred Tahsil under the "KABILKAST" Scheme on lease on 25/03/1958. Since according to the petitioner it was difficult for the petitioner to invest money in the land for cultivation, the petitioner decided to sell the land by a Registered Sale Deed. It is the case of the petitioner that she agreed to sell the land to Kamlakar Borkar and Girish Borkar on 29/10/2011 for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. The petitioner applied to the Collector on 04/04/2012 for permission to sell the land. As per the policy of the Government, as reflected in the ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:53:58 ::: 3 J-WP-1630-15.odt Government Resolution dated 29/01/2006, the petitioner was required to deposit 50% of the market value of the land that was sought to be sold with the State Government, towards unearned income. According to the petitioner though the market value of the land as on the date of making of the application i.e. 04/04/2012 was less, by the impugned communication dated 24/03/2015, the petitioner was granted permission to sell the land subject to depositing a sum of Rs.10,20,000/- towards unearned income. The condition in the order granting permission is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.
Mrs. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Collector was not justified in asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10,20,000/- i.e. 50% of the market value of the land as per the ready reckoner for the year 2014, specially when the petitioner had applied for permission on 4 th April, 2012 and the Collector was responsible for delaying the matter pertaining to the grant of permission. It is submitted that on the basis of the valuation report prepared by a private valuer, the petitioner had sought to sell the land to Kamlakar Borkar and Girish Borkar for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is submitted that since according to the Collector, the land of the petitioner is touching the Highway, the market value of the land of the petitioner is fixed @ Rs.800 - Rs.850/- per square meter, as ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:53:58 ::: 4 J-WP-1630-15.odt per the ready reckoner of the year 2014. It is submitted that it would be necessary for the State Government and its authorities to consider the market value of the land, on the date on which the application was made and not on the date when the permission is granted. It is submitted that the Government Resolution dated 29th May, 2006 that provides for the fixation of the unearned income on the basis of the market value of the land on the date of grant of permission to sell the land is bad in law. It is submitted that since the Government Resolution mentions that the delay in deciding the application for permission would affect the applicant, it would be all the more necessary for the Government to decide the market value of the land, as on the date of making of the application and not on the date on which the application is granted. It is submitted that the petitioner believed that the market value of the land on the date of execution of the Agreement of Sale in the year 2011 was approximately Rs.6,60,000/- per hectare and hence the petitioner had agreed to sell 0.24 HR of land for Rs.1,50,000/-.
Mrs. Mrunal Naik, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned order. It is submitted by referring to the ready reckoner for the year 2014, on the basis of which permission was granted to the petitioner to sell the land that the market value of the land touching the Highway was Rs.850/- per square meter in the year 2014. It is submitted that the ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:53:58 ::: 5 J-WP-1630-15.odt land of the petitioner is admittedly touching the Highway and therefore, as per the ready reckoner of the year 2014, the market value of the land in the year 2014 was determined by considering that the value of the land at the relevant time was Rs.850/- per square meter. It is submitted that the date on which a party may enter into an agreement before applying for permission cannot be the date for fixing the market value. It is submitted that after taking several steps in the matter pertaining to the valuation and assessment of the property, the impugned order was passed on 24/03/2015, and permission was granted subject to payment of Rs.10,20,000/- towards unearned income. It is submitted that the Government Resolution rightly provides for the fixation of the market price at the time, when the application is decided. It is submitted that the challenge made by the petitioner to the Government Resolution dated 29th May, 2006 is not sustainable.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. Before entering into a sale-purchase transaction, every seller and purchaser would be required to consider the rates of the lands that are to be sold or purchased, as per the ready reckoner. The lands that are sought to be sold or purchased cannot be sold at a price which is less than the rate in the ready reckoner. Even if the lands are sold at a price which is less than the rate in the ready reckoner, the parties selling and purchasing ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:53:58 ::: 6 J-WP-1630-15.odt the land would be required to pay the stamp duty on the registration of the Sale Deed as per the valuation of the land in the ready reckoner. It is clear that the minimum stamp duty which the parties would be required to pay at the time of registration of the sale deed would be the market value of the land as per the ready reckoner as on the date on which the transaction is effected and the Sale Deed is executed. If that be so, we do not find that the Government Resolution dated 29 th May, 2006 that provides for the fixation of the market value of the land as on the date of decision to sell the land, for the payment of unearned income is bad in law. A person to whom the permission is granted for selling the land would be able to sell the land after the date on which the permission is granted and not before the said date. The person selling the land would therefore be required to sell the land at a rate which is in consonance with the rates fixed by the ready reckoner and even if he decides to sell the land at a lesser rate, he would be required to pay the stamp duty for the execution of the Sale Deed as per the rates provided by the ready reckoner. We fail to gauge as to how the petitioner considered that the market value of the land of the petitioner was Rs.6,80,000/- per hectare when the petitioner entered into the sale transaction with Kamlakar Borkar and Girish Borkar. The petitioner is free to sell the land at a rate which may be lesser than the rate fixed in the ready reckoner, however, the petitioner would be required to pay 50% of the market value of the land i.e. as per the ready reckoner ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:53:58 ::: 7 J-WP-1630-15.odt towards unearned income. The petitioner has come up with the case that he has entered into an Agreement of Sale with Kamlakar Borkar and Girish Borkar on 29/10/2011 for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. Even as per the ready reckoner of the year 2011, the market value of the land, which is admittedly a Highway touch land could not have been Rs.6,80,000/- per hectare as stated on behalf of the petitioner. The value of the Highway touch land in the year 2012, when the petitioner made the application in the year 2012 was Rs.500/- per square meter. The petitioner could not have therefore entered into an Agreement of Sale to sell 0.24 hectare of land for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- only. We do not know whether the Agreement of Sale is genuine or not and whether it is just prepared for the purpose of seeking permission to sell the land for Rs.1,50,000/- so that only a sum of Rs.75,000/- is paid to the Government as unearned income when the value of the land as per the ready reckoner in the year 2012 was much more. Be that as it may, in the year 2014, when permission was granted to the petitioner to sell the land, the market value of the land was Rs.850/- per square meter as the land was admittedly touching the Highway. We have perused the ready reckoner and have found that the market value of the land in the year 2014 was Rs.850/- per square meter. In fact, the petitioner would be benefited if the petitioner still agrees to pay the unearned income of Rs.10,20,000/- as per the impugned order passed on 17/01/2015. Today we are in the year 2017 and if the petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:53:58 ::: 8 J-WP-1630-15.odt sells the land on the basis of the permission granted in the year 2014 in the year 2017, the petitioner is bound to secure a price which is much more than the price fixed by the ready reckoner of the year 2014. The value of the land must have increased considerably in the next three years and it is most likely that the market value of the land of the petitioner would be more than Rs.850/- per square meter, as nearly three years have lapsed from the date of grant of permission to the petitioner to sell the land.
We do not find any illegality in the action on the part of the respondent to ask the petitioner to pay unearned income as per the market value of the land on the date of the decision. A person may agree to sell the land before he makes an application for permission to sell the land but the Government cannot be expected to receive only 50% of the amount of consideration for which the land is sought to be sold by the owner. The ready reckoner is required to be considered for determining the amount that is liable to be paid to the government as unearned income. We do not find that there would be any loss to the applicant merely because there is a short delay in deciding his application. The applicant seeking permission, would be entitled to sell the land only after the permission is secured and therefore, his land would fetch the price which would be the market value of the land on that date. The market value of the land cannot be determined, as on the ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:53:58 ::: 9 J-WP-1630-15.odt date on which a person decides to sell the land or makes an application. In this case also, we do not find that there is any undue delay in deciding the application of the petitioner. Some steps were taken by the Government to consider as to what was the exact extent of the land that was sought to be sold and as to what was the value of the land as per the ready reckoner. It was also necessary for the State to consider whether the sale of the land could be permitted or not in view of the provisions of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. We find that the time spent by the respondents in deciding the application was due to the formalities, that were required to be completed before granting permission to the petitioner to sell the land. Since the market value of the land as per the ready reckoner was Rs.20,40,000/- when the permission was granted, we do not find any illegality in the action on the part of the Collector in directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10,20,000/- towards unearned income.
Since the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted, in the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:53:58 :::