Whether impugned order of charging as per annual statement of rate without land having been declared as non-agricultural, justified.

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that this matter is in a narrow compass, as the concerned authority i.e. Respondent No. 2 while issuing order dated 19.03.2010, has not taken into consideration the relevant factors germane for deciding the true and correct value of the land in question so as to make it amenable for levying the appropriate stamp duty under the provision of Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958.

2. The facts in brief, as narrated by the petitioner could be summarized as under;

The petitioner’s predecessor-in-title was granted benefit of conversion of land from new tenure to old tenure on payment of premium to the tune of Rs. 36,60,160/-. However, at that time the request for rendering the land non agricultural also was not accepted and hence in the permission which came to be granted in respect of two parcels of land, the authority incorporated condition that non agricultural permission be obtained under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code within one year from the date of issuance of change of tenure. The two parcels of land namely land of Survey No. 30P and land of Survey No. 173 came to be purchased by this petitioner from the vendor who had already obtained partial permission of tenure change but that in itself did not change the characteristics of land, as the land is technically yet to be declared to be non agricultural land by levying appropriate premium thereon. Therefore, the transaction of purchase of these two parcels of land by sale deed dated 04.06.2009 was taken into assessment by Deputy Collector for verifying the exact levyable stamp duty thereon and vide order dated 19.03.2010, he came to the conclusion that the land is developed land meaning thereby non agricultural land and as such was required to be charged as per the Annual Statement Rates prescribed by the State for the guidance of the concerned officer. This order was assailed into revision to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA), who also in turn upheld the reasoning of Deputy Collector by treating the land to be a non agricultural land and hence did not entertain the application which came to be resulted into order dated 16.11.2010. These two orders are subject matter of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner invited this Court’s attention to various facts and indicated that the new tenure land, when it was converted into that of old, it did not cease to be an agricultural land and as and when the said land is required to be used for any other purpose than agriculture, the permission under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code is absolutely essential and therefore, the Annual Assessment Rates would have no applicability, as if the land is non agricultural land i.e. NA land, as it is sought to be considered by both the authorities for levying stamp duty thereon.

4. Learned AGP invited this Court’s attention to the affidavit-in-reply and the guidelines issued by the State and especially at Page No. 95 of the compilation to substantiate the reasoning adopted by both the authorities to show that the land in such a situation could not said to be a land which known as agricultural land in fact the location of the land, the development in the surrounding area and the development of events so far as these two parcels of land are concerned, in itself are sufficient to show that the land in no way could have been sold for the amount which manifested in the sale document and therefore, the Deputy Collector as well as the Controlling Authority were justified in coming to the conclusion that the land is treated to be an NA land for all practical purposes.

5. Learned AGP, however, could not controvert the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that in the instant case the formal order of NA to be issued under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code has yet not been issued by any authority and therefore, the 7/12 extract issued as back a