IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.M. SAVANT, J.
M/s. Niketan Land and Estate Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondents
WP No.6747 of 2016
Decided on : 10-01-2017
The transfer and conversion of agricultural lands allotted by the State Government on the basis of Occupancy Class II is regulated by the said Government Regulation dated 8.9.1983. The said Government Resolution postulates the terms and conditions on which the transfer and conversion can be granted. One of the conditions is that the transferee would continue to occupy the land as Occupant Class II. The said Government Resolution having been issued by the State Government can be modified or varied only by the State Government and the officers exercising the powers under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are required to follow the said Government Resolution and not tinker with the terms and conditions mentioned in the said Government Resolution. In the instant case, the Secy. and OSD in spite of the mandate of the said Government Resolution dated 8.9.1983 has in breach and violation of the said Government Resolution directed conversion of the land from Occupancy Class II to Occupancy Class I which was impermissible.
Hence, it would have to be held that the order passed by the Secy. and OSD to the said extent is illegal as having been passed without jurisdiction and therefore the said condition though in favour of the petitioner would be of no avail. In the instant case, the order passed by the Secy. and OSD has merged in the order passed by a single Judge dated 21.1.2008 which is turn has merged in the order dated 18.8.2009 passed by the Division Bench of High Court in LPA. If that be so, the order passed by the Secy. and OSD dated 9.8.2002 insofar as it directs the conversion of land from Occupancy Class II to Occupancy Class I cannot be relied upon in the teeth which can be said to be confirmed by the Division Bench.
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Sections 29 and 247-G.R. dated 8-9-1983-Constitution of India, Article 226-Transfer and conversion of land.-Writ petition challenging order of Collector granting transfer and conversion of land, filed after 5 years from date of order liable to be dismissed on ground of delay and laches.
The order passed by the Collector, Nashik is dated 24.2.2010, the suit appears to be filed in the year 2010 and the same got settled in the year 2014. Hence, insofar as the said order dated 24.2.2010 is concerned, there was absolutely no impediment for either the original owner or the petitioner to challenge the said order passed by the Collector, Nashik. However, beyond stating that the original owner was involved in the litigation with a third party, there is no explanation as to why there is delay of about 5 years in filing the above Writ Petition challenging the said order dated 24.2.2010. The aforesaid facts therefore imply that he order passed by the Collector, Nashik was acceptable to the original owner i.e. the said "N" as also to the petitioner and that the present challenge is therefore speculative in nature and by way of taking a chance. The above writ petition would accordingly have to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and is accordingly dismissed on the said ground.
1. Rule with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.
2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 24/02/2010 passed by the Respondent No.2 i.e. the Collector, Nashik by which order the application filed by the predecessor of the Petitioner for grant of permission to transfer the land and for its conversion from agricultural to nonagricultural came to be allowed on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The terms and conditions mentioned in the impugned order entail the payment of unearned income to the State Government, as also the condition that the land in question would continue to remain as Occupancy Class II land. The Petitioner is principally aggrieved by the aforesaid condition mentioned in the impugned order.
3. The factual matrix involved in the above Petition can in brief be stated thus :
The subject matter of the application filed by one Namdeo Eknath Bankar was the land bearing Survey No.836 at Nashik. The said land was allotted in the year 1949 by the State Government to the father of the said Namdeo Bankar on new and impartible tenure on permanent grant basis. The father of the said Namdeo Bankar had accordingly executed a Kabuliyat in form FI in terms of the requirements mentioned in the allotment letter. The said Kabuliyat which is in the nature of an undertaking would be referred to in the instant judgment a bit later. In so far as the categorization of lands into Class I and Class – II is concerned, the same finds place in Section 29 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The said Section also sets out the attendant attributes of the lands belonging to each of the aforesaid categories. The said Section 29 is reproduced herein under for the sake of ready reference :
“Section 29 : Classes of persons holding land.
(1) There shall be under this Code the following classes of persons holding land from the State, that is to say :
(a) Occupants – Class I
(b) Occupants – Class II
(c) Government lessees.
(2) Occupants Class
I shall consist of persons who –
(a) hold unalienated land in perpetuity and without any restrictions on the right to transfer;
(b) immediately before the commencement of this Code hold land in full occupancy or Bhumiswami rights without any restrictions on the right to transfer in accordance with the provisions of any law relating to land revenue in force in any part of the State immediately before such commencement; and
(c) notwithstanding any notification or order issued under Section 150 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, are holders of land in Bhumidhari rights in any local area in Vidarbha and are permitted hereafter, subject to the rules made by the State Government in this behalf, on payment of a premium (not exceeding three times the assessment payable in respect of such land) to be included in occupants-Class I.
(3) Occupants-Class II shall consist of persons who,
(a) hold unalienated land in perpetuity subject to restrictions on the right to transfer;
(b) immediately before the commencement of this Code hold
(I) land in Vidarbha in Bhumiswami rights with restrictions on the right to transfer or in Bhumidhari rights under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954; and
(ii) elsewhere hold land in occupancy rights with restrictions on the right to transfer under any other law relating to land revenue; and
(c) before the commencement of this Code have been granted rights in unalienated land under leases which entitle them to hold the land in perpetuity, or for a period not less than fifty years with option to renew on fixed rent, under any law relating to land revenue and in fore before the commencement of this Code; and all provisions of this Code relating to the rights, liabilities and responsibilities of Occupants-Class-II shall apply to them as if they were Occupants-Class II under this Code.”
Hence a reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that in so far as Class II land is concerned, it is subject t
Kunhayammed and others v/s. State of Kerala and another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359
Mohinder Singh Gill v/s. Chief Election Commissioner
Tridip Kumar Dingal and others v/s. State of West Bengal and others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 768
U.P. State v/s. Mohd. Noor (AIR 1958 SC 86)
V.S. Charati v/s. Husssein Nhanu Jamdar (Dead) by LRs reported in (1999) 1 SCC 273
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.