Point of Law: After a period of 28 years, petitioner cannot be permitted to say that they will make the payment of premium which was determined 20 years back, may be with interest.

ORDER :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the original petitioner – Shri Bhulabhai Desai Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited challenging the oral judgement dated 08.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the oral judgement under challenge, the learned Single Judge refused to entertain the prayer of the appellant – original petitioner to pay the amount of premium of Rs. 4,17,632/with reasonable rate of interest which was determined as far back as in the year 1982. The learned Single Judge held that after a period of 28 years, the appellant – original petitioner cannot be permitted to say that he will make the payment of premium which was determined 28 years back with interest. The learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the petition.

2. Facts in a nutshell are as under:

2.1 The land in question on which the Society has built dwelling units – 163 in number under the Weaker and Economically Backward Class scheme, was originally owned by one Kikiben and son Vasantbhai Bhulabhai Desai. The land is situated at Survey No. 149 at village Katargam, Ta. and Dist. Surat. Since the land was a New Tenure land, the original owners on 02.01.1982 applied for a scheme for building houses. The application was made under the provisions of Section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act) 1976 ('the Act' for short).

2.2 On 15.10.1982, the land owners made an application to the Surat Municipal Corporation for approval of plans which was granted on 07.12.1982. Such permission for Non Agricultural (NA) use was granted, subject to the terms and conditions of the order therein. As per one of the terms and conditions of the order dated 07.12.1982, the original land owners were required to pay Rs. 4,17,632/as premium for the said non – agricultural use of the land within two months from the date of the order.

2.3 On 25.11.1984, the Talaticum Mantri Katargam recorded a Mutation Entry No. 7303 in respect of the permission so granted. The original land owners did not comply with the condition of depositing the premium within two months as per the order and therefore on 02.05.1992. the Deputy Collector, Surat passed an order directing the land owners to deposit the amount of premium within 21 days. The original land owners did not do so and therefore the Mamlatdar, Choriyasi registered a charge of the said amount of premium on 16.07.1992.

2.4 From the facts on record, it is evident that the original land owners challenged the order dated 02.05.1992 directing them to pay the premium before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by filing a Revision Application bearing No. TEN/BS/113 of 1992. The Tribunal by its order dated 08.02.1995 remanded the matter to the authority to decide the premium afresh. The original land owner Kikiben died on 24.05.1995. The application for building houses under Section 21 of the Act was rejected on 28.02.1996 which was also challenged before the competent authority and the Tribunal by its order dated 06.06.1996 remanded the matter for fresh consideration. During this entire period i.e. between the period of 1982 and 199596, neither did the original owners nor the Society in question pay the amount of premium so computed in the year 1982.

2.5 A Complaint was lodged by the Society on 07.01.2004 before the Grievance Redressal Authority of the Revenue Department with regard to the payment of premium. On 26.10.2004, the Deputy Collector, Surat asked the parties to remain present on 03.11.2004. The original land owner as well as the Society on 24.11.2004 made detailed written submissions on the aspect of premium.

2.6 On 19.10.2007, the Collector, Surat communicated to the original petitioner that a proposal has been forwarded for computing premium as per the latest market value. To this, a representative of the petitioner Society on 26.10.2007 made a request that the premium be charged at reasonable rates. On 21.05.2008, the petitioner Society made a representation to the Secretary, Revenu