Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.V.Gangapurwala, M.G.Sewlikar, JJ.
Ananta Landmarks Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8341 of 2021
Decided On : 09-06-2022
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Conversion Rules, 2019 - The court discussed the applicability of Conversion Rules, 2019 to lands acquired and allotted under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The judgment highlighted the interpretation of the rules, the authority of the State Government to frame policies, and the restrictions on the right to transfer land. The court concluded that the Conversion Rules, 2019 apply to the Occupancy Class II land, and quashed the impugned communication, directing the Respondent authority to treat the land as Occupancy Class II and charge the conversion premium based on the valuation of the property at the time of the application.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner challenged the rejection of their application for the conversion of Occupancy Class II lands into Class I lands under the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion Of Occupancy Class-II And Leasehold Lands Into Occupancy Class-I) Rules, 2019. The lands were acquired for industrial purposes and subsequently permitted for residential/commercial use. The dispute revolved around the applicability of the Conversion Rules, 2019 to the lands acquired and allotted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Conversion Rules, 2019 apply to the Occupancy Class II land acquired and allotted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It quashed the impugned communication and directed the Respondent authority to treat the land as Occupancy Class II and charge the conversion premium based on the valuation of the property at the time of the application.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the Conversion Rules, 2019 to the lands acquired and allotted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court also addressed the authority of the State Government to frame policies and the restrictions on the right to transfer land under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Conversion Rules, 2019, the authority of the State Government to frame policies under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, and the restrictions on the right to transfer land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Final Decision: The impugned communication was quashed, and the Respondent authority was directed to treat the land as Occupancy Class II and charge the conversion premium based on the valuation of the property at the time of the application. The rule was made absolute in the above terms, and no costs were awarded.
Key Points: - The court held that Conversion Rules, 2019 apply to Occupancy Class II lands acquired and allotted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and quashed the impugned communication, directing treatment as Occupancy Class II and conversion premium based on the value at the time of application (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The State Government has the power to frame policies under Article 162 of the Constitution of India regarding land use and transfer, provided such policies do not contravene statutes or rules (!) . - The case discusses classification of land as Occupancy Class II and the restrictions on transfer under Sec. 29, 29A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, and the applicability of Conversion Rules, 2019 to lands granted under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and those allotted under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The government’s policy GR 11/1/2018 permitting transfer/change of user of land acquired for industrial purposes is recognized as permissible, subject to development plans/regulations (!) (!) . - The judgment references CEAT Limited (Supra) to support that lands allotted under Part VII of the Act have Class II occupancy status (!) . - The order directs the Respondent authority to treat the land as Occupancy Class II and to charge the conversion premium based on the valuation on the date of application (!) .
JUDGMENT
S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, Writ Petition is heard finally.
2. The Petitioner in the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the impugned order / communication dtd. 27/9/2021 issued by the District Collector of Thane i.e. Respondent no.2 thereby rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner for conversion of occupancy from Class-II to Occupancy Class-I of the writ lands.
3. Sans the necessary details, the facts relevant for adjudication of the present petition can be culled out as under:
4. The State of Maharashtra (Respondent no.1) acquired an area of 1,89,680 sq. mtrs. of the lands under the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1894). Upon the request of the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner, the agreement to that effect was executed, as required under the Act, 1894 in respect of an area of 1,89,680 sq. mtrs. Upon further request of the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner, the State of Maharashtra also granted an area of 10,900 sq. mtrs. under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Sanad dtd. 14/12/1990 under sec. 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for an area of 10,900 sq. mtrs. is issued in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner.
5. The writ lands were acquired for the benefit of the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner to run the Industry. It is the case of the Petitioner that the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner used the said lands for industrial purposes for about 50-60 years. It is the case of the Petitioner that with the passage of time, to avoid the hazards of industrial pollution, most of the companies/industrial units including that of the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner were either shifted to other locations or shut down. To cope up with the need of urban population, the State Government came up with a policy regarding sale or change of use of lands acquired for industrial purpose under Part VII of the Act, 1894 and to permit such lands for residential / commercial use. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the State of Maharashtra permitted the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner to transfer the writ lands to the Petitioner under different permissions dtd. 17/11/2009 and 21/8/2010 upon payment of requisite premium. According to the Petitioner, the lands allowed to be transferred to the Petitioner are 'Occupancy Class-II' lands. Petitioner as such, filed an application for conversion of Occupancy Class II lands into Class I lands as per the rules notified by the Respondent no.1 in the year 2019 namely the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion Of Occupancy Class-II And Leasehold Lands Into Occupancy Class-I) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2019). The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition.
6. Mr.Sathaye, the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner in his usual lucid manner submits that the lands allotted to the Petitioner are Class II occupancy lands. The title document issued by the State Government expressly records that the lands are Class II occupancy lands. Clause 2 of the title documents expressly provides that the lands are granted subject to the provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and Rules made therein. Clause viii stipulates that the Company shall not alienate the land except with previous permission in writing from the Government. It is contended by the learned Senior Advocate that on a plain reading of the Rules, 2019 dtd. 8/3/2019 viz. Conversion rules, the same applies to lands granted or subsequently allotted by the competent authority to be used for agricultural or residential or commercial or industrial purpose on Occupancy Class-II or leasehold rights. The said is evident from Rule 1(2) of Rules, 2019. Further under Rule 3, it categorically provides for the application to be made by any holder of land granted on occupancy
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the fulfillment of conditions for transfer and conversion under the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, particularly Section 63, Section 65, and Section 65A, to....
Point of law : in case of a diverted land, the requirement of obtaining the permission under Section 4(2) of the Act does not arise as the permission has to be obtained only in respect of 'granted la....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the material date for imposing conversion charges for land use, based on the date of the application and the enactment of the ....
The distinction between 'Old agreement' and 'Old tenure' land is crucial in determining premium obligations for land conversion under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.
existence of an alternative remedy whether adequate or not, does not alter the fundamentally discretionary nature of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction and, therefore, does not create an absolute bar....
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
