( 1 ) RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Siraj gori waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. An important question of law has been raised in this petition to the effect that whether while fixing the amount of premium under section 43 of The Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 for conversion of new and restricted tenure land into an old tenure land, an opportunity of being heard ought to be provided to the applicant or not " section 43 (1) of The Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act,1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act,1948), reads as under :-"43. (1) No land or any interest therein purchased by a tenant under section 17b, 32, 32f, 32-I, 32-O, [32u, 43-1d or 88e] or sold to any person under section 32p or 64 shall be transferred or shall be agreed by an instrument in writing to be transferred, by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment, without the previous sanction of the Collector and except in consideration of payment of such amount as the State Government may by general or special order determine; and no such land or any interest, therein shall be partitioned without the previous sanction of the collector. "

( 2 ) THIS petition has been preferred against the order dated 18th November,2005 passed by the collector, Kutch (Annexure "d" to the memo of the petition), whereby the petitioner has been ordered to deposit Rs. 23,16,456/- for allowing the land bearing Survey no. 910/22 of village Varsamedi, taluka Anjar for conversion into old tenure land.

( 3 ) LEARNED advocate Shri A. J. Patel, for the petitioner, mainly submitted that the impugned order dated 18th November,2005 passed by the collector, Kutch, is violative of principles of natural justice. The amount of premium directed to be paid under section 43 of The Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The impugned order is not a speaking order at all. What is running in the mind of Collector,kutch is not capable of being read by the petitioner. The figures have come in the mind of the Collector, Kutch from heaven or sky. There ought to be some basis and ought to be some calculation for arriving at a prices referred to in the impugned order, whereby the petitioner is directed to make payment of 80% of Rs. 28,95,570/-i. e. Rs. 23,16,456/- arbitrarily. This figure has been fixed without any basis and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. Arbitrariness and equality are sworn enemies of each other. Where arbitrariness is present, equality is absent and, hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

( 4 ) LEARNED advocate Shri A. J. Patel for the petitioner, has submitted that because of highly unequal bargaining power with the State, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 23,16,456/- under protest with the respondent authority. Nonetheless, petitioner submits that this amount is excessively exorbitant. The relevant factors like price of land in vicinity of Revenue Survey No. 910/22 paiki village: Varsamedi, Tal. Anjar, District-Kutch, has not been appreciated by the Collector, Kutch. Had sufficient opportunity of being heard been given to the petitioner, it would have been brought to the notice of the Collector, Kutch that the figure arrived at by the Collector is exorbitant in nature. He has also relied upon several decision of the Hon ble Apex Court as well as of this Court which are referred to hereinunder: (i) 2000 (3) GCD 1878 (Gujarat) (ii) AIR 2002 Gujarat 193 (iii) 1976 GLR 525 in view of the aforesaid judgments, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that adequate opportunity of being heard ought to have been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order by the Collector, Kutch and, therefore, impugned order deserves to be quashed as it is violative of principles of natural justice.

( 5 ) I have heard the learned Assistant Government pleader Mr. Siraj Gori on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, who has submitted that the decision arri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document