Dipesh Manibhai Shah vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 7160 Guj

                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




    C/SCA/13748/2006                                    CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

                                                                                            undefined




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13748 of 2006
                                     With
                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23353 of 2005
                                     With
                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23354 of 2005
                                     With
                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23355 of 2005
                                     With
                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13749 of 2006
                                     With
                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13750 of 2006
                                     With
                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13751 of 2006
                                     With
                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13752 of 2006
                                     With
                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13753 of 2006
                                     With
                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13754 of 2006
                                     With
                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13755 of 2006

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI
==================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
       judgment ?

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as

to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================== DIPESH MANIBHAI SHAH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s) ================================================== Appearance:

MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS SUMAN MOTLA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==================================================

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI

Date : 29/09/2023

CAV JUDGMENT

1. By way of this group of Special Civil Applications, the

petitioner basically has challenged the legality and validity of

the orders passed by the respondent authorities and thereby

prayed to hold that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount

of premium for transfer of his land to Pushpaben Natubhai

Patel. Since this group of petitions are arising out of similar

controversy and a request is made to deal with all the petitions

conjointly, learned advocate representing the petitioner has

requested to treat Special Civil Application No. 13748 of 2006

as a lead mater and submissions have been made in the said

petition, which would govern the other set of Special Civil

Applications which are filed with this group and as such, for the

sake of convenience, upon request of learned advocates, we

have treated Special Civil Application No. 13748 of 2006 as a

lead matter.

2. The petition is arising out of factual following details. It is

the case of the petitioner that land bearing Revenue Survey No.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

806/1, Block No. 768, admeasuring 3136 sq.mtr., Survey No.

806/4/1 = Block No. 766 admeasuring 2328 sq.mtrs., Survey

No. 806/6/2 = Block No. 735 admeasuring 2428 sq.mtr., Survey

No. 739/2 = Block No. 751 admeasuring 1619 sq.mtrs., of

Village Sevasi, Taluka and District Baroda was granted by the

respondent authority to one Chotabhia Kalabhai Bhangi (now

deceased) on new and impartible condition under the relevant

provisions of Act and the land was included in the agriculture

zone under the Draft Developemnt Plan of VADA.

2.1. It the case of the petitioner that petitioner wanted to

purchase the said lands and as such, the holders of the said

lands applied before the District Collector, Baroda for

permitting them to sell the said lands to the petitioner herein

for agriculture purpose. The said application was made on

20.02.1997. In response to the said application, process was

undertaken by the authority and as per the report from the

department of town planner, Baroda, the market value was

determined at Rs.6,48,000/- per hectare and the District

Collector asked the holders of the lands to deposit amount of

Rs.2,99,578/- being the amount of premium payable to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

subject land as condition precedent for transfer of the said lands

in government treasury and accordingly, petitioner had

deposited the said amount and as such, on 16.12.1997,

permission was granted to transfer the said lands to petitioner

subject to further conditions which were set out in the order. As

many as out of seven (7) conditions, petitioner found condition

nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 being prejudicial to the interest of the

petitioner and as such, petitioner carried the said order dated

16.12.1997 before the higher authority i.e. State Government

and ultimately challenged the said order passed by the State

Government, by way of separate petitions.

2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently, he

purchased the said lands by registered sale deed dated

28.01.1998 and pursuant to the said registered sale transaction,

the entry got mutated being entry no. 3397 in the revenue

records and in due course, the said entry was also certified. The

petitioner thereafter applied to the Collector on 28.07.2003 to

permit the petitioner to sell the said land to one Pushpaben

Natubhai Patel to enable her to put construction of school

building. The petitioner submitted proposal to the Government

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

in that behalf and ultimately the Collector passed an order on

12.01.2004 permitting the petitioner to sell this land to

Pushpaben Natubhai Patel subject to condition of paying an

amount of Rs.9,90,546/- being premium amount to the State

Government in respect of the said land. Feeling aggrieved by

the said order i.e. order dated 12.01.2004, the petitioner filed

proceedings by way of revision application before the State

Government and the Special Secretary, Revenue Department

(Appeals) (SSRD) vide order dated 18/26.05.2005 was pleased

to dismiss the revision application and feeling aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner approached this Court by way of petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is in this

background, it appears that the petition by way of order dated

27.02.2007 was admitted and clubbed this group of petitions

and then upon completion of pleadings, it has come up for

consideration before this Court. Hence, upon request of learned

advocates, the matter is taken up for hearing.

3. Similar is the case with respect to the other petitions

attached to this factual details in a very summarized form is

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

reproduced hereunder :-

"Insofar as Special Civil Application No.23354/2005 is concerned a challenge is made to an order dated 12.01.2004 of the District Collector granting permission to sale of property on payment of premium and order dated 27.05.2005 of the SSRD, where the prayer for refund the amount of premium is made.

Insofar as Special Civil Application No. 23355 of 2005 is concerned, a challenge is made to an order dated 16.12.1997 passed by the District Collector imposing condition Nos 1, 2, 4 and 5 as well as order dated 27.05.2005 of the SSRD, where the conditions imposed by the District Collector were challenged.

Insofar as Special Civil Application No.23353/2005 is concerned, a challenge is made to an order dated 27.02.2004 passed by the District Collector by which he corrected his earlier order dated 12.01.2004 and demanded further premium of Rs.76,050/- as well as has also challenged order dated 27.05.2005 of the SSRD where refund of the above amount was claimed.

Insofar as Special Civil Application No.13750/2006 is concerned, a challenge is made to an order dated 16.12.1997 passed by the District Collector imposing condition nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as well as order dated 26.05.2005 of the SSRD, in which the said conditions were challenged.

Insofar as Special Civil Application No.13748/2006 is concerned, a challenge is made to an order dated 12.04.2004 passed by the District Collector of levying premium amount of Rs.9,90,456 as well a order dated 26.05.2005 of the SSRD for refund of the same amount.

Insofar as Special Civil Application No.13749/2006 is concerned, a challenge is made to the corrected order dated 27.02.2004 to pay further amount of Rs.2,39,662/-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

as well as order dated 26.06.2005 for refund of the said amount was claimed.

Insofar as Special Civil Application No.13754/2006 is concerned, a challenge is made to the corrected order dated 02.01.2004 levying premium of Rs.4,53,015 as well as order passed by SSRD dated 26.05.2004 for refund of the said amount was sought for.

Insofar as Special Civil Application No.13753/2006 is concerned, a challenge is made to the corrected order dated 27.02.2004 to pay further amount of Rs.1,03,913/- as well as order dated 20.05.2005 for refund of the said amount was claimed.

Insofar as Special Civil Application No.13755/2006 is concerned, a challenge is made to the corrected order dated 16.12.1997 passed by the District Collector imposing condition nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 as well as order dated 26.05.2005 of the SSRD, in which the said conditions were challenged

Insofar as Special Civil Application No.13751/2006 is concerned, a challenge is made to the corrected order dated 12.01.2004 passed by the District Collector of levying premium amount of Rs.8,15,926/- as well a order dated 26.05.2005 of the SSRD for refund of the same amount.

Insofar as Special Civil Application No.13752/2006 is concerned, a challenge is made to the corrected order dated 27.02.2004 to pay further amount of Rs.2,07,178/- as well as order dated 26.05.2005 passed by the SSRD for refund of the said amount was claimed."

4. Mr. S. P. Majumudar, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner has vehemently contended that the order passed by

the respondent authority is not only unjust or arbitrary, but is

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

not sustainable in the eye of law. It has been contended that the

amount which has been paid by the petitioner was paid under

protest and that fact ought to have been noticed by the

authority to pass an order. It has been contended that the

authorities below have not properly appreciated the fact that

once transfer of land is permitted on payment of premium, land

would automatically convert into old tenure as all other

restrictions imposed while transfer would disappear and as

such, to again demand premium is hit by principle of unjust

enrichment. According to learned advocate Mr. Majmudar,

pursuant to the earlier permission when already premium

amount collected by the State authorities, it would not be open

at all to demand once again the amount of premium. Further it

has been contended that once permission under Section 5(3) of

the Act of 1953 is granted, there is hardly any reason for

insisting for payment of further premium since earlier premium

has extinguished all the restrictions which were imposed at the

relevant point of time and as such, even in view of guidelines

contained in Government Circular dated 13.07.1983 insistence

for further payment of premium is outside the scope of authority

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

and therefore, this is a serious error committed by the

authorities below. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has in

written form raised following issues/submissions for

consideration of this Court and since the same is tendered, the

Court deems it proper to reproduce hereunder :-

BRIEF POINTS FOR ARGUMENTS

 The lands were originally granted to the predecessor of the petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay Service Inams (Useful to Community) Abolition Act, 1953. It is submitted that permission to transfer the aforesaid land was granted under section 5(3) of the Act by way of order dated 16.12.1997 by the District Collector. While granting the aforesaid permission. premium of 50% of the market price of the land asseassed by the respondent authorities was paid. It is submitted that despite the same in the said order, conditions were imposed viz. condition Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, wherein it was mentioned that the land would remain a new tenure lard and further transfer of the land cannot be made without prior approval of the District Collector. It is submitted that once the petitioner has already paid 50% of the market price of the land in question, as assessed by the respondent authorities towards the premium for transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner, such conditions of restricting the tenure of the land as "new tenure land" and imposing conditions about further non- transferability are completely illegal, void without authority of law and without jurisdiction.

 The petitioner paid the amount of premium, which was initially assessed in the 1997, thereafter, on 12.01.2004 the petitioner applied for transfer of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

land, wherein the impugned orders were passed by the District Collector levying premium at 80% of the market price. The said order of levying premium of 80% of market price is completely unsustainable, illegal, without authority of law and without jurisdiction. Once premium at 50% has already been paid there can be no further chargeability of premium for further transfer of land.

 After the District Collector passed order dated 12.01.2004. further orders were passed by him, levying additional premium by passing corrected order dated 27.02.2004. Such additional premium was levied by him as he did not give set off of the amount of 50% premium deposited by the petitioner earlier. Such order is also completely illegal, without authority of law and without jurisdiction.

 The petitioner has paid the entire amount of premium under the corrected order of Collector protest and has transferred the land however, the petitioner is entitled to get refund of the same. The petitioner applied to the Special Secretary. Revenue Department for getting refund of the said amount as well as challenging the conditions imposed by the District Collector. However, the Special Secretary, Revenue Department by the impugned order dated (26.05.2005 rejected the revision application of the petitioner. The said order of the Special Secretary, Revenue Department is also erroneous and does not consider the contentions of the petitioner.

 That the authorities below have committed fundamental error in not appreciating that the purchaser would always be ready and willing to pay the necessary charges which are required for conversion of the land into N.A. land but the authorities cannot unjustly enrich themselves by charging double premium. In the present case, the total premium demanded by the authorities for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

transfer of land is 130% of the market price of the land, which is completely impermissible.

 That Government Resolutions referred to in the affidavit-in-reply also do not give any powers to the authority to charge premium at two stages. However, the authority cannot charge premium again having already charged premium once, as per the prevailing policy for transfer of land.

 That the impugned conditions imposed in the order of the District Collector dated 16.12.1997 are without authority of law and without any source of power and just because the petitioner did not initially challenge the same, the petitioner cannot be estopped from challenging the same, as there cannot be any estopple (against law and there cannot be any waiver of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the part of the petitioner. It is submitted that in the present case, the State authorities have acted in violation of Article 14 o the Constitution of India and have acted completely arbitrarily and even in the reply they have not justified their source of powers for levying premium twice for transfer of lands.

 That such premium should also not be charged in view of the provisions of section 5(3) of the Bombay Service Inams (Useful to Community) Abolition Act, 1953.

 It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has transferred the land to the agriculturist and the authority charged premium at 130% for transfer of land by agriculturist to another agriculturist. (the first 50% for transfer in favour of petitioner who is agriculturist and another 80% fir transfer in favour of Pushpaben who is also an agriculturist).

 That though the petitioner has transferred the land further after paying premium, the said amount of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

premium is paid under protest. Since the said amount has been calculated by the authorities without any authority of law and without any statutory provisions enabling them to do so, the amount of premium paid by the petitioner is required to be refunded by the authority to the petitioner with interest."

4.1. After submitting this, it has been categorically stated that

once permission has been granted under the Special Act, there

is hardly any reason for applying general principle of premium

and thereto after several years and as such, the authorities

below ought to have been appreciated and the same having not

been done, the order under challenge is required to be quashed

and set aside.

5. As against this, Ms. Suman Motla, learned Assistant

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent authority has

submitted that Government Resolution which is pressed is with

respect to regrant and as such, the petitioner is bound to pay

80% of the amount, and as such, once having availed the benefit

somewhere in the year 2005, the petitioner cannot take undue

advantage any further. By drawing attention to affidavit-in-

reply, an attempt is made by the learned Assistant Government

Pleader to contest the petition. Learned Assistant Government

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

Pleader has further submitted that as per Government

Resolution dated 13.07.1983 occupant of land who wants to sell

the land of new impartible condition for agriculture purpose is

supposed to pay 50% of the market value of premium. The

original allottee i.e. Chhotabhai Kalabhai Bhangi applied for

permission for sale of subject land in question to one Dipesh

Manilal Shah, the present petitioner and as such, permission

was granted on condition to deposit 50% amount of market

value and the said amount has been paid by petitioner.

5.1. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for further permission

to resale the subject land to Pushpaben Natubhai Patel for non

agriculture use i.e. for public school purpose for which he was

granted permission on payment of 80% amount of the market

value as determined by the Collector. According to learned

Assistant Government Pleader, Section 73(A) and (B) of the

Bombay Land Revenue Code are not applicable in this case as

the said provisions are applicable in cases of transfer of land of

the tribals and as such, under these set of circumstance, the

order passed by the Collector confirmed by the SSRD is just and

proper and as such has requested not to entertain the petition.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

5.2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has further by way

of additional affidavit filed by the Mamlatdar and Executive

Magistrate, Vadodara (Rural) has pointed out that petitioner

was granted permission in the year 1997 and payment has been

made by way of premium to the extent of Rs.1,29,891/- and the

said land then was allotted to him for agriculture purpose only

as new and impartible tenure and on 18.02.1998, sale deed was

executed which was mutated in revenue records. Subsequently,

in the year 2003, the petitioner applied for sale/change of

condition and has paid actually an amount of Rs.4,53,015/- on

16.12.2003 and thereafter, permission of Collector, Vadodara

which was accorded on 16.12.1997 to transfer the land by way

of registered sale deed of Block No. 750 and 756 was

transferred in favour of Pushpaben Natubhai Patel. The land

owner then Pushpaben Natubhai Patel on 13.05.2006 sold one

portion of land i.e. Survey/Block No. 764 to one 'Nalanda

Knowledge Foundation' and as such, now since the land is

already transferred to the third party, the petitioner has no

locus standi to challenge the proceedings as on date and as

such, challenge at his instance may not be entertained.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the

parties and having gone through the orders passed by the

authorities below, few circumstances deserves consideration

before arriving at an ultimate conclusion.

6.1. Before dealing with the main controversy, we may peruse

the relevant provisions centering around the controversy. The

provisions of the Bombay Service Inams (Useful to Community)

Abolition Act, 1953 was an Act enacted on 22.12.1953 to abolish

service of inams useful to community in certain parts of the

State of Bombay and the same was made applicable here in the

State of Gujarat, which effect is not in dispute. The Act has

defined the word 'holder' of a service inam village as well as

service inams 'appointed day' is also prescribed. Amongst other

provisions of the Act, Section 4 deals with 'liability of service

inam villages and lands to land revenue and persons liable to

pay the same, whereas, Section 5 is dealing with 'resumption of

service inam land and its regrant to holder. This being a

relevant provisions, at this juncture, Court deems it proper to

re-produce hereunder :-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

"5. Resumption of service inam land and its regrant to holder :- (1) All service inam lands which have not been adjudicated under Rule 8 of Schedule B to the Bombay Rent-free Estates Act, 1852, are hereby resumed and shall be liable to the payment of land revenue under the provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder and the provisions of the Code and the rules relating to the unalienated lands shall apply to such lands. (2) A service inam land resumed under the provisions of [subsection (1)] shall be regranted to the holder on payment of the occupancy price equal to six times the amount of the full assessment of such land within [five years] from the appointed day a n d the holder shall be deemed to be an occupant within the meaning of the Code in respect of such land and shall primarily be liable to pay land revenue to the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder: Provided that if the holder fails to pay the occupancy price within the period of [five years] as provided in this Section, he shall be deemed to be unauthorisedly occupying the land and shall be liable to be summarily ejected in accordance with the provisions of the Code: [Provided further that where a service inam consisting of land is inalienable and is in the possession of a person other than the descendant of the original grantee, then for the purposes of regrant of land, the person in possession of the land shall produce satisfactory documentary evidence to show that the alienation of the land in his favour or in favour of his predecessor-in-title was mad e with the sanction of the competent authority, and was lawfully made. (3) The occupancy of the land regranted under sub-section (2) shall not be transferable or partible by metes and bounds without the previous sanction of the Collector and except on payment of such amount as the State Government may by general or special order determine."

6.2. The manner and method in which, how this provisions are

made workable, is stipulated in other parts of the statute and by

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

virtue of Section 13 of the Act, the State Government, subject to

the condition of previous publication is empowered to make the

rules for the purpose of carrying out provisions of this Act.

Section 5 of the Act as indicate above which deals with

resumption, has indicted in sub-section (1) that all service inam

lands which have not been adjudicated under Rule 8 of schedule

B to the Bombay Rent-free Estates Act, 1852, are resumed and

shall be liable to the payment of land revenue under the

provisions of the Code, as also, subject to the rules relating to

unalienated lands shall also apply to such lands. Sub-section (2)

has indicated that service inam land resumed under the

provisions of sub-section (1) shall be regranted to the holder on

payment of occupancy price equal to six times the amount of full

assessment of such land within five (5) years from the appointed

day and the appointed day is defined under clause (a) to Section

2 and has stipulated that such holder or occupant shall

primarily be liable to pay land revenue to the State Government

in accordance with law with the provisions of the Code and if he

fails to pay occupancy price within the aforesaid period of five

years, he shall be deemed to be unauthorizedly occupying the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

land and liable for summary eviction. Sub-section (3) of Section

5 is stipulating that occupancy of land regranted under sub-

section (2) shall not be transferable or partible by metes and

bounds without the previous sanction of the Collector and

except on payment of such amount as the State Government

may by General or Special order determine and as such,

transfer subject to condition as stipulated in the said provisions.

6.3. With a view to regulate the occupancy, certain other

Government Resolutions by way of policy measures have also

prescribed criteria and imposed certain conditions and one of

such is Government Resolution dated 16.03.1982. This

Government Resolution has taken care of regrant and stipulated

certain terms for the purpose of change from new tenure to old

tenure or for non-agriculture purpose as well and in respect of

this, a provision is made to the effect that if any occupant/land

holder if inclined to convert for agriculture purpose, within 12

years from such circumstance, then 50% market value and

regarding occupancy rights, premium amount has to be paid,

such is the provision made under clause (2) (GH). This

Government Resolution has been further reconsidered by way of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

subsequent Resolution dated 13.07.1983 in which restrictions

which were made in respect of regrant and conversion

permissions. The Resolution has provided that in respect of

lands which are granted under the policy act, clause (1) has

cancelled the standard conversion of lands from new tenure to

old tenure, which are relating to agriculture purpose and under

clause (2) it has been stated that if occupancy is for a period

within 20 years, then 75% whereas in case possession is more

than 20 years, 50% premium is decided to be taken and also

provided that the same would be occupying as new tenure and

impartible condition only. Later on it has been provided in this

very Resolution that if holder on account of contingencies which

are stipulated is not in a position to execute agricultural

operation, and there is need to relinquished agricultural

purpose, either on premium or shifting elsewhere or

extraordinary circumstance, where it is not possible except to

sell away the land then, for agricultural purpose only sale

permission would be granted and for that if occupancy is within

20 years, 100% premium to be collected and if such permission

sought for is beyond the period of 20 years occupancy then

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

premium to the extent of 90% to be collected and this

Resolution was published with concurrence of the relevant

department. Thereafter, one another Resolution came to be

published by the State Government dated 17.09.1984 wherein,

it has been stipulated with some modification that if occupancy

is within 20 years and for non-agricultural purpose, then 100%

premium whereas, if beyond period of 20 years, then 90%

premium which was provided in earlier Resolution was modified

and stipulated that within 20 years, if to be utilized for non-

agricultural purpose, premium would be at 80%. These are the

policy measures provided by the Government by virtue of

various Resolutions.

7. Now in light of the aforesaid situation which is prevailing

on record, the policy framed by the Government by virtue of

Government Resolutions are not at all under challenge and

there is no reflection of any arbitrariness in respect of measures

taken by the respondent authority. Further whether payment

has been made under the protest or not is a matter of dispute

and the said issue is within the realm of disputed question of

fact and after making the payment as demanded by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

authority, now to turn around and challenge the said action, it

appears to be not digestible. The policy which is framed has its

own object to be achieved and close perusal thereof, is not

indicating that the principle of unjust enrichment violates in any

form. In fact, it cannot be said that there is any unjust

enrichment. The earlier amount which has been collected and

then which has been subsequently collected are in altogether

different circumstance and the said policy has got specific

source of power and as such, in the absence of any challenge to

the said provisions of policy, it is not open for the petitioner now

to agitate after securing benefit upon voluntary payments

having been made.

7.1. In fact, it further appears from the record that the land in

question is already transferred to a third party and the

petitioner is a seller who has extinguished his right by

transferring the land after collecting consideration from the said

sale transaction and as such, the question of locus also is not

possible to be ignored by this Court thereto, when extraordinary

jurisdiction equitable in nature under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is invoked.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

8. In light of the aforesaid situation which is prevailing, the

reasons which are assigned by the authority are such, which

cannot be said to be perverse or suffering from any material

irregularity. In fact, proper application of mind is reflecting in

such exercise of jurisdiction and the overall consideration of

material which has been narrated in the order, this Court is of

the opinion that the order passed by the authorities below is just

and proper, cannot be said to be illegal or irregular in any form.

Hence, this Court would not like to interfere with the orders

passed by the authorities below and in any case, the present

petitioner undisputedly has made payments on which, portion

of land 'Nalanda Knowledge Foundation' has become transferee

and as such, in the absence of any irregularity of any nature,

the Court is not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction.

9. As discussed earlier, by virtue of specific provisions, a

demand has been made by the authority which is paid and

further in view of the policy, a further amount which has been

determined has also been paid long back, and hence at this

stage, the Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction more

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

particularly, when such demand was in pursuance of the policy

framed by the State Government. At this juncture, it would be

apt and appropriate to quote the relevant proposition of law laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of judicial review in

examining the policy matters. The Hon'ble Apex Court time and

again, has propounded that unless the said policy is apparently

arbitrary or reflects mala fides, no interference deserves. The

following are the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court, the Court deems it proper to quote hereunder :-

"In the case of Federation Haj PTOs o India v. Union of

India reported in (2020) 18 SCC 527 (para 19 & 20)

"19. The scope of judicial review is very limited in such matters. It is only when a particular policy decision is found to be against a statute or it offends any of the provisions of the Constitution or it is manifestly arbitrary, capricious or mala fide, the Court would interfere with such policy decisions. No such case is made out. On the contrary, views of the petitioners have not only been considered but accommodated to the extent possible and permissible. We may, at this junction, recall the following observations from the judgment in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth:

"16... The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The Legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation- making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitation imposed by the Constitution."

20. We may also usefully refer to the judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlan Jaiswal. In this judgment, licence to run a liquor shop granted in favour of A was challenged as arbitrary and unreasonable. The Supreme Court held that there was no fundamental right in a citizen to carry on trade or business in liquor. However, the State was bound to act in accordance with law and not according to its sweet will or in an arbitrary manner and it could not escape the rigour of Article 14. Therefore, the contention that Article 14 would have no application in a case 4 (1984) 4 SCC 27 5 (1986) 4 SCC 566 where the licence to manufacture or sell liquor was to be granted by the State Government was negatived by the Supreme Court. The Court, however, observed:

"But, while considering the applicability of Article 14 in such a case, we must bear in mind that, having regard to the nature of the trade or business, the Court would be slow to interfere with the policy laid down by the State

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

Government for grant of licences for manufacture and sale of liquor. The Court would, in view of the inherently pernicious nature of the commodity allow a large measure of latitude to the State Government in determining its policy of regulating, manufacture and trade in liquor. Moreover, the grant of licences for manufacture and sale of liquor would essentially be a matter of economic policy where the Court would hesitate to intervene and strike down what the State Government had done, unless it appears to be plainly arbitrary, irrational or mala fide."

In the case of Satya Dev Bbhagaur & Ors. v The Sstate

of Rajasthan and Ors. Reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC)

177 (para 16 and 18.)

16. It is trite that the Courts would be slow in interfering in the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary. This court would not interfere with the policy decision when a State is in a position to point out that there is intelligible differentia in application of policy and that such intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

18. A three Judge bench of this Court in Sher Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1995) 6 SCC 515 has observed thus: "As a matter of fact the courts would be slow in interfering with matters of government policy except where it is shown that the decision is unfair, mala fide or contrary to any statutory directions."

10. And here even no challenge is made to the policy and as

such, in view of the aforesaid proposition of law laid down in

respect of relevant issues, no case is made out by the petitioner

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

to call for any interference. Apart from that, the scope of

exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction is also succinctly

propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court and considering such

proposition also, the Court is of the opinion that no case is made

out by the petitioner. Following are the observations contained

in the decision in the case of Mohd. Inam Vs. Sanjay Kumar

Singhal and Others reported in (2020)7 SCC 327, in respect

of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

"34. It is a well settled principle of law, that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held, that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in this respect can be placed on a catena of judgments of this Court including the ones in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, Bathutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R.10 (1960) 1 SCR 890 37 Tarta & Anr.11, M/s India Pipe Fitting Co. vs. Fakruddin M. A. Baker & Anr.12, Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde, Mrs. Labhkuwar Bhagwani Shaha & Ors. vs. Janardhan Mahadeo Kalan & Anr., Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guram, Venkatlal G. Pittie and another vs. Bright Bros (Pvt.) Ltd., State of Maharashtra vs. Milind & Ors., State Through Special Cell, New Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afshan Guru and others, Ranjeet Singh vs. Ravi Prakash, Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. vs. Tilak

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13748/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

Raj Bajaj (Deceased) Through LRs. and others, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms.) and others vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others."

11. In light of the aforesaid proposition, and in light of the

aforementioned discussion, the Court is of the clear opinion that

no case is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the

orders under challenge. Accordingly, petitions being devoid of

merits stand dismissed with no order as to costs.

12. Since all other cognate petitions are raising similar issues

and the lead matter was essentially argued, the present order

would govern other sets of petitions which are attached along

with the present group of petitions and the same also

accordingly dismissed hereby. Rule is discharged. Interim relief

if any, stands vacated.

(ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J)

phalguni