Bombay High Court
Smt. Manjulabai Ramaji Ganvir vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 11 July, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
