The main legal point established is that objections to land conversion should have been raised earlier, and the transaction could have been entered into with prior permission from the District Collector. The Court emphasized the need for a pragmatic view and the balancing of rights of the petitioner and the interest of the Government in calculating the premium.

( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Chayya, learned AGP waives service of rule for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Mr. Barot for respondent No. 2. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has preferred the petition for challenging the order passed by the State Government dated 07. 06. 2005, whereby the non-agricultural permission granted in favour of the petitioner is set aside.

( 3 ) HEARD Mr. Rana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Chayya, learned AGP for the State Authorities and Mr. Barot for the District Panchayat.

( 4 ) UPON hearing the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, it appears that it is not in dispute that initially the land was shown in the revenue record vide entry No. 676 dated 20. 07. 1971 as that of old tenure. It is also not in dispute that a portion of the land was purchased by APMC Tharad. It is not in dispute that the land was sold by the original holder Jetha Harji and Reva Harji to one Rupa Bhana and Aja Bhana by Registered Sale Deed. It is not in dispute that on 15. 12. 2003, the petitioner purchased the portion of the land admeasuring 5 acre 10 gunthas from the legal heirs of Harijan Bhana.

( 5 ) IT appears that on 09. 08. 2004, the petitioner made an application for converting the land for NA use and vide order dated 08. 11. 2004, the permission was granted by the District Panchayat for converting the land for NA use. Till then, no objection was raised at any point of time that the land is a new tenure land and cannot be converted into NA use unless the appropriate permission is obtained of the Collector by paying the requisite premium.

( 6 ) IT appears that after the order for NA use was passed, the State Government in purported exercise of the power under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, issued show-cause notice as to why the permission of NA use should not be taken in revision and set aside since the land was restricted tenure land and prior to the conversion into NA, permission of the District Collector was not obtained. The petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice and contended inter alia that the land was shown in the revenue record as old tenure and not only that but thereafter, it was sold to one person and the petitioner purchased the land from him. It was further contended that the transaction of sale between the land lord and the tenant were also regularised and therefore, as the land is of old tenure, the ground mentioned in the notice is not maintainable and therefore, the notice may be withdrawn. It appears that thereafter, the State Government passed the order on 01. 06. 2005, whereby it has observed that the land was a restricted tenure land/new tenure and therefore, if the permission is to be obtained for NA use, prior approval of the District Collector was required to be obtained and as no permission was obtained and as no premium is paid, NA use could not have been permitted and therefore, as the order came to be passed without prior approval of the District Collector and without payment of the premium to the State Government, the order passed by the District Panchayat is set aside in the revisional jurisdiction.

( 7 ) IT is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by preferring the present petition. It may be stated that when this Court considered the matter for the first time on 02. 09. 2006, the following order was passed :

"pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 29. 08. 2006, Mr. Rana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is agreeable to pay the premium as per the policy of the Government on the basis of the market value prevailing on the date when the petitioner purchased the property with interest @ 12% p. a. from that date till the actual payment. In view of the above, Notice returnable on 25thseptember, 2006. The respondent No. 2 shall report to this Court the tentative valuation of the land in questi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document