Bombay High Court
Ramnarayan Binjraj Toshniwal And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 11 August, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
1 958 WP.6404.2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
958 WRIT PETITION NO.6404 OF 2019
RAMNARAYAN BINJRAJ TOSHNIWAL AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. B. R. Warma, h/f Mr. Gopal C. Navandar.
AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. A. R. Kale.
Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. Devanand Y. Nandedkar.
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 11th August, 2021.
P.C.:
. The petitioner assails the order dated 1st October, 2018.
Under the said order, it is held that the appeal is not tenable.
Mr.Warma, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners
are directed to pay additional charges of Rs.5,28,000/- as 5% on the
valuation. The respondents are valuing the property as on July 2018.
The same is erroneous. The earlier application was made under
Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to the Collector as
required under the statute. The tentative non-agricultural permission
was also granted, but the petitioners were directed to approach the
Municipal Council and the application was given to the Municipal
Council on 4th January, 2017. The respondents could not have valued
::: Uploaded on - 17/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2021 10:40:11 :::
2 958 WP.6404.2019.odt
the property as in 2018. The valuation as on the date of application, is
required to be considered.
2 The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
application was given to the Municipal Council on 4 th January, 2017.
The same is allowed on 3 rd July, 2018 and rightly the petitioners are
directed to pay the 5% amount on the valuation as on that day.
3 It is not disputed that the petitioners had filed application
for grant of NA permission with the Municipal Council on 4 th January,
2017. The same shall be the relevant date for consideration of the
valuation of the property.
4 We had in catena of judgments held that the valuation has
to be made on the date of application. Reference can be had to the
order of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.10339 of
2019 dated 13th January, 2020.
5 In light of the above, we pass the following order:
ORDER
I. The impugned order to the extent of
directing the petitioners to pay the amount
3 958 WP.6404.2019.odt
of Rs.5,28,000/- is set aside.
II. The respondents shall value the property of
the petitioners for which the permission is
sought as on 4th January, 2017 and
thereafter, pass the orders for the payment
of the amount.
III. The writ petition is allowed in above terms.
No costs.
[ R. N. LADDHA, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
nga
