IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
Ratilal Madan Waja - Petitioner
Versus
The Collector Mumbai Suburban District and ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No.38563 of 2022
Decided On : 22-12-2023
Conversion Charges - Land Use - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Rule 3 (iv) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Occupancy Class-II and leasehold land into Occupancy Class-I), Rules 2019 - [27.04.2012, 31.07.2012, 27.05.2019, 12.12.2012, 08.03.2019, 19.04.2022, 10.10.2022] - The court discussed the application for change of user made in 2012, the policy enacted in 2019, and the relevant dates for calculating conversion charges. It referred to the decision in Major General Rohinton Soli Jambusarwalla Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Anr. Vs Mahajan Industries Ltd. & Anr., (2005) 10 SCC 203 to determine the material date for imposing conversion charges for land use.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought conversion of leasehold plot into Occupancy Class I. The Respondent rejected the application based on the policy enacted in 2019, requiring payment of conversion charges on the basis of the market value in 2019. The Petitioner argued that the charges should be based on the market value in 2012, as the application was made in 2012.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for change of user was made in 2012, and the relevant policy was enacted in 2019. It held that the conversion charges for land use had to be calculated on the basis of the market value as prevalent in 2012, as per the relevant date of the application. The court quashed the impugned communication and directed the Petitioner to pay the conversion charges based on the market value prevalent in 2012 and 2019 for change of user and conversion from leasehold land to freehold, respectively.
Issues: The issues revolved around the calculation of conversion charges for change of user and conversion from leasehold land to freehold, based on the relevant dates of the application and the enactment of the policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the determination of the material date for imposing conversion charges for land use, considering the date of the application and the enactment of the relevant policy.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned communication was quashed. The Petitioner was directed to pay the conversion charges based on the market value prevalent in 2012 and 2019 for change of user and conversion from leasehold land to freehold, respectively.
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr. Zaidy, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Patki, learned Addl. Government Pleader for Respondents. By consent of both the learned Advocates, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. This Writ Petition is filed under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :
“(a) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that the letters Dated 21st June 2022 [Exhibit “N”] erroneously and illegally quantifying the amount allegedly payable towards “Change of user” and 10th October 2022 [Exhibit “P” hereto] issued by the 1st Respondent thereby rejecting the Petitioner’s application and the relief sought on the basis of the application submitted on 12th September 2022 (Exhibit “Q” hereto) in respect of the subject plot, bearing Sub-plot No.17-B of Final Plot no.17 of TPS Scheme VI of Mouje, Vile Parle, Taluka Andheri having corresponding CTS No.1612/2, situated at Shastri Nagar, Santacruz (W), Mumbai– 400 054, described in paragraph 1 of the Petition are erroneous bad in law and ought to be cancelled;
(b) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or direction or order to call for the files and records of sub plot No.17B bearing TPS scheme No. Final plot No.17, C.T.S. No.1612/2 being the subject matter of registered Lease agreement Dated 28th December 2007 [Exhibit “A” hereto] and the application submitted on 12th September 2022 (Exhibit “Q” hereto) made by the Petitioner and after going through the same to forthwith direct Respondents No.1 and 2 to determine and quantify:
charges for change of user at 3% on the basis of market value of the subject land prevalent in the year 2012 as per letter Dated 27th April 2012 being Exhibit “B” hereto;
and
premium at the rate of 25% for residential use on the basis of the market value prevalent in the year 2019 (when the application was made) for converting the leasehold land into Class Occupancy I;
and
Respondents 1 and 2 may pleased be directed that upon payment of the aforesaid amounts in the office of the 1st Respondent to forthwith issue an Order converting the subject leasehold plot into Occupancy class I in favour of the Petitioner as contemplated under Rule 3 (iv) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Occupancy Class-II and leasehold land into Occupancy Class-I), Rules 2019;
(c) for ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) above;
(d) for costs;
(e) Such further and other reliefs for direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem, just, equitable and convenient to grant.”
3. Challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order Dated 10.10.2022 passed by the Respondent No.1 – Collector, Mumbai Suburban District on the Application Dated 12.09.2022 filed by the Petitioner in pursuance of the order Dated 19.04.2022 of this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 7102 of 2021.
4. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are outlined as under:
4.1. Petitioner is lessee of the leasehold plot of ‘G’ tenure admeasuring 232.44 sq. meters or thereabout together with the building / structure standing thereon bearing sub-plot No.17B of final plot No.17 of TPS Scheme VI of Mouje Vile Parle, Taluka Andheri having corresponding CTS No.1612/2 (for short “the subject plot”) described in paragraph No.1 of the Petition. A lease agreement Dated 28.12.2007 is granted by the Respondent No.2 - State Government of Maharashtra with respect to the subject plot for a period of 30 years commencing from 01.08.2005.
4.2. On 19.03.2012, Petitioner alongwith the lessees of the adjacent plots made a representation to the 1st Respondent for making change in use of the subject plot for residential user instead of industrial user. Respondent No.1 by letter Dated. 27.04.2012, addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department of Government of Maharashtra referred to the application of the Petitioner Dated 19.03.2012 for change in user of the s
AI
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 ....
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....
Misuse charges levied by authority are unsustainable when not timely addressed, and delay in processing applications cannot be penalized against the petitioner.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner is not liable to pay the one-time premium for change of user and penalty as demanded by the impugned notice, and the applicatio....
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....
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.