Back
2003 Supreme(Bom) 1135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Khanwilkar A.M., J.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited .... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 3639 of 2003, decided on 26-9-2003.
Advocates appeared :
Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Sr.C. with A.M. Vernekar, for petitioner.
Goolam Vahanvati, Ms. K. Hakeem A.A.G., C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P., for respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
R.S. Apte, for respondent No. 5.
Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 285 - Challenge to payment of non-agricultural assess- ment. - Since the land in question is a property of union by virtue of Article 285 of Constitution, it is not amenable to levy of non-agricultural assessment.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Payment of non-agricultural assessment. - Mere execution of unregistered document cannot operate as delivery of property for to constitute "sale" under Section 54 of T.P. Act. There must be real delivery of property in pursuance of agreement and mere constructive possession is not sufficient.
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Sections 110, 111 and 117 - Non-agricultural assessment - Land belonging to Union of India - Govern- ment company in possession of already - Indenture transfer of that land to company - Transfer not registered - Notional value of land shown as Rs. 1/- - Change in character of possession - Not proved - No sale - Land is property of Union - Union of India continued to be owner of land - Company only using land - Company not liable to non-agricultural assessment. - Even if the petitioner was to be held as lessee, because it has been described in the VII x XII extract as occupant, as observed by the respondent No. 2 even then it would make no difference, because, as already
observed above, there is no express provision in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, whereby the lessee of the land owned by the State Government or the Central Government can be treated as owner thereof, as was in the case of Electronic Corporation of India (supra). A priori, we will have to accept the stand of the petitioner-company that the land is still owned by the Union of India and is the property of the Union and the petitioner-company is only using the land, which, for the stated purpose, is assigned to them. In such a situation, the character of the land, being the property of the Union, remains unaltered, and if that is so, by virtue of Article 285 of the Constitution of India, it is not amenable to levy non-agricultural assessment
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 285 - Challenge to payment of non-agricultural assess- ment. - It is not open to respondent for the first time to contend before High Court that the indenture is a "grant" and that no registration of that docu- ment was necessary in view of provisions of Section 17(2) of Registration Act.
2.This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Forests Department, Government of Maharashtra, dated 21st April, 2003, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay non-agricultural assessment in respect of lands situated at villages Ojhar, Konkangaon and Sakore, Taluka Niphad, District Nasik. It is common ground that the said lands were acquired by the State Government and the acquisition proceedings concluded some time in 1968. As the lands thereafter vested in the State Government, the same were made over to the President of India for establishing MIG factory and related purposes by a registered document dated 19th November, 1971. It is also not in dispute that the President of India thereafter allowed the petitioner to occupy the subject lands for constructing MIG factory and that the petitioner is in possession of those lands since then. An indenture was executed between the petitioner and the President of India on 22nd June, 1978, whereby the parties agreed for transfer of the subject lands to the petitioner. However, this purported transfer deed has not been registered. It appears that the Accountant General, Maharashtra II, Nagpur, raised an audit objection regarding non-charging of non-agricultural assessment in respect of the subject lands, which were in possession of the petitioner company. In view of the said objection, taken some time in 1993, correspondence ensued between the officers of the Government of Maharashtra and the petitioner company, including the Ministry of defence, Government of India. According to the stand taken by the officers of the State of Maharashtra, the lands were amenable to non-agricultural assessment, as the petitioner was a separate entity and occupant in respect of the subject lands. Besides, they proceeded on the premise that the subject lands have been transferred in favour of the petitioner and the Union of India had no concern with the same. On the other hand, the petitioner company asserted that the lands continued to belong to the Union of India. Besides, the petitioner company was 100 per cent, owned and controlled by the Union of India, for which reason also the petitioner company was exempted from paying non-agricultural assessment in respect of the subject lands. The stand taken on behalf of the petitioner company was not acceptable to the officers of the State Government. In the circumstances, demand notice in Form-I was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 4 on 5th July, 2001, demanding sum of Rs. 10,98,11,575/-, being the non-agricultural assessment in respect of the subject lands. That demand notice was followed by another demand notice dated 23rd August, 2001. Once again, the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence took up the matter with the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra contending that the subject lands belonged to the Union of India and were exempted under Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India from payment of non-agricultural assessment. It is the petitioners case that the said representation was pending with the higher authority and, yet, the officers of the State Government persisted with the demand against the petitioner company. In this backdrop, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court, being Writ Petition No. 6209 of 2001. That writ petition came to be disposed of by order dated 16th January, 2002, directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation dated 27th August, 2001 made by the Secretary to Government of India, Department of Defence, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. Thereafter, Civil Application No. 247 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner fo
