Bombay High Court
Shashikant Ramdas Wadhokar vs The Tahsildar, Shegaon on 8 December, 2009
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
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.
ORAL 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
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
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
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
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.
