Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ
State Of Goa & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Dr. Alvaro Alberto Mousinho De Noronha Ferreira – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7576 of 2019 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24633 of 2017)
Decided on : 24-09-2019
(a) Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 - Section 32(6) - Right to land owners to appeal if timeline not adhered to by the department - Instantly no appeal filed - Thus, respondent waiving his right - Further, respondent acquiescing and consenting to conversion charges being paid in accordance with the amended provisions by filing the affidavit-cum-indemnity bond. (Para 17)
(b) Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 - Section 32(6) - Respondent not filing appeal against delay in decision - Filing an appeal only after obtaining all permissions and sanad - Voluntarily giving affidavit to deposit conversion fee as fixed and not to claim any refund - Cannot be permitted to challenge the levy of conversion charges at the rates fixed. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
The question arising in this case is “whether conversion charges payable for conversion of land from agricultural to nonagricultural should be calculated on the basis of the rates applicable at the time of making of the application or on the date when the order allowing conversion of land was issued?”
Finding of the Court:
Appellants rightly imposed the conversion charges as on the date of decision to grant Sanad.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The primary issue in this case is whether the conversion charges for land from agricultural to non-agricultural use should be calculated based on the rates applicable at the time of application or on the date when the conversion Sanad was granted. The court has determined that the applicable charges are those in effect on the date of the Sanad issuance, which is the decision to grant the Sanad (!) (!) .
The application for land conversion was filed on 08.03.2013, and the relevant decision to issue the Sanad was made on 19.09.2013. The amount of conversion charges was calculated and deposited on 09.10.2013, after the enhanced rates came into effect following an amendment to the relevant land revenue code (!) (!) (!) .
The landowner had initially applied for conversion of a specific area, but the total area for which permission was ultimately granted was larger, leading to some confusion. Despite this, the court noted that the application process and subsequent approvals were conducted in accordance with the law, and the delay was partly attributable to procedural and application-related factors (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The landowner filed a writ petition claiming a refund of the excess amount paid, arguing that the charges should have been calculated based on the rates at the time of application. The lower court partly allowed the claim, directing calculation based on the application date for the initial area but upheld the rates at the time of Sanad issuance for the additional area (!) .
The appellate court held that the landowner waived their right to challenge the rates because they did not file an appeal within the prescribed timelines and had acquiesced by submitting an affidavit-cum-indemnity bond, agreeing to pay the charges at the rates applicable at the time of the Sanad (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the relevant legal provisions specify that the date of the decision to grant the Sanad is the applicable date for calculating the conversion charges. The submission of the affidavit and the subsequent payment under protest did not amount to coercion but rather to a voluntary act, which resulted in the waiver of the landowner’s challenge to the rates (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the respondent’s challenge, affirming that the authorities correctly imposed the conversion charges at the rates prevailing on the date of the Sanad, and the respondent’s conduct and conduct of the application process contributed to the delay and confusion, further supporting the court’s decision (!) (!) .
Overall, the decision reinforces that the applicable rates for conversion charges are those in force at the time of the decision to grant the Sanad, and procedural delays or procedural lapses by the landowner do not entitle them to a refund or to challenge the rates applied at that time (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Gupta, J.
Leave granted.
2. The following question arises for decision in this appeal. “Whether conversion charges payable for conversion of land from agricultural to nonagricultural should be calculated on the basis of the rates applicable at the time of making of the application or on the date when the order allowing conversion of land was issued?”
3. Facts necessary for decision of the case are that the respondent and three of his family members applied to the State for permission to convert some agricultural land measuring 16014 sq. mtrs. on 08.03.2013. This application was acknowledged by the Office of the Deputy Collector on 29.04.2013. Inspection of the land was carried out on 15.05.2013 and the Mamlatdar submitted his report to the Deputy Collector on 16.05.2013. Thereafter, a report was submitted by the Town and Country Planning Department on 21.05.2013.
4. On 22.05.2013, amendment was made in the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) by the Goa Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2013 and the rates of conversion were revised and increased substantially.
5. The Deputy Conservator of Forest, Margao submitted his report with regard to the conversion on 04.06.2013. On 09.07.2013, the Deputy Collector wrote to the Mamlatdar for some information, which information was supplied by the Mamlatdar to the Deputy Collector on 15.07.2013. On 19.07.2013, the respondent submitted an affidavit agreeing to pay the conversion charges as asked for and also undertook not to sue for refund of conversion charges. On 19.09.2013, a communication was sent to the respondent and his family members to deposit the amount as per the enhanced rates. On 09.10.2013, the respondent deposited the amount of conversion charges, as demanded and thereafter, Sanad granting permission for conversion of land was issued on 19.11.2013.
6. Thereafter, the respondent filed writ petition claiming refund of the excess amount, as according to the respondent, the conversion charges should have been fixed as per the rates applicable on the date of application i.e. 08.03.2013. The High Court partly allowed the writ petition in the following terms:
“(ii) The impugned communication dated 19.09.2013 stands quashed and set aside.
(iii) The respondents are directed to calculate the conversion fees payable by the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein above and refund the excess amount, if any, to the petitioner together with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of such payment up to the actual payment.”
The High Court, however, held that this order applied only to 16014 sq. mtrs. and for the remaining area 9354.50 sq. mtrs. which was added by a separate addendum after the amendment came into force on 22.05.2013, the respondent herein shall be liable to pay revised rates. The High Court relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Mahajan Industries Ltd. & Anr., (2005) 10 SCC 203, Union of India & Ors. vs. Dev Raj Gupta & Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 63, and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal & Saigal Properties (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. L. & D.O. & Ors., (1998) 74 DLT 152.
7. As far as the judgment in Mahajan Industries case (supra) is concerned, the judgment is based on the concession of the counsel for the appellant that he did not dispute the correctness of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ansal & Saigal Properties (P) Ltd. (supra). The Court further held that in terms of the said judgment the crucial date for calculating the conversion charges is the date of receipt of the application. This Court further held that the application filed by the original owners on 25.03.1981 through their general power of attorney for change of land use had never been rejected and was still pending and it was in these circumstances that the Union of India was directed to take a final decision on conversion of land use as expeditiously as possible but co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
