Back
1980 Supreme(Goa) 11
Goa High Court
TITO MENEZES, J. C.
Bhanabhai Khalpabhai Patel - Appellant
Versus
Collector of Daman - Respondents
Special Civil Appln. (Writ Petn.) No. 106 of 1972
Decided On : 9 July 1980
R.J. Joshi with B.S. Ramani, for petitioner; J. Dias, Govt. Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
The provisions of Sections 8B and 8C of the Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation, 1962, could be applied retrospectively to invalidate a sale deed executed before their enactment, as they did not impair any existing right or obligation.
Headnote:
Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation, 1962 - Sections 8A, 8B, 8C - Interpretation and Application - Transfer of Land - Permission of Collector - Validity of Sale Deed - Forfeiture of Land.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased land from the vendors, who were occupants under the Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation, 1962. The sale deed was executed after the insertion of Sections 8A, 8B, and 8C in the Regulation, which prohibited the transfer of land without the permission of the Collector. The petitioner did not obtain such permission, and the Collector forfeited the land under Section 8C.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the land as the sale deed was invalid due to the lack of permission from the Collector under Section 8B. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments that the provisions of Sections 8B and 8C could not be applied retrospectively, that the acceptance of transfer tax by the government precluded it from challenging the sale deed, and that Section 8B was ultra vires the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Sections 8B and 8C of the Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation, 1962, could be applied retrospectively to invalidate a sale deed executed before their enactment. 2. Whether the acceptance of transfer tax by the government precluded it from challenging the validity of the sale deed. 3. Whether Section 8B of the Regulation was ultra vires the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the provisions of Sections 8B and 8C could be applied retrospectively as they did not impair any existing right or obligation. The assignment of the land became effective only after the enactment of Section 8B, and the petitioner did not acquire any title to the land prior to that date. 2. The court held that the acceptance of transfer tax did not validate the sale deed if it was otherwise invalid. The treasury officer's receipt of transfer tax did not estop the Collector from examining the validity of the sale deed. 3. The court held that Section 8B was not ultra vires the Constitution as it did not confer unbridled power on the Collector. The Collector's power to grant permission for the transfer of land was subject to the conditions prescribed by the Rules framed under the Regulation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, upholding the Collector's order forfeiting the land.
ORDER :- By the impugned order the Collector of Daman forfeited in favour of the Government under S.8C of the Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Regulation, the land belonging to the respondent No. 4, 4A, his brother Cawas and his mother Freni and transferred to the petitioner by the deed dated November 5, 1968.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows :- The respondent No. 4, his brother Cawas and his mother Freni, (hereinafter referred to as "the Vendors") are the owners of 55 hectares and 56 acres of land situated in the village of Jampore, in Moti Daman. By an agreement dated, June 7, 1968, the vendors agreed to sell the said land to the petitioner. The petitioner and the Vendors are all agriculturists and were and are cultivating the said land personally. Immediately on the execution of the said agreement, the petitioner was put in possession of the said land in part performance of the agreement and he started carrying on agricultural operations thereon. On November 5, 1968, the said land was transferred to the petitioner by a regular deed of conveyance executed in pursuance of the said agreement. Payment of transfer tax (siza) to the tune of Rupees 48,000/- under the "Decreto Provincial No. 60" dated June 15, 1896, was duly made and the sale deeds were duly registered. On Aug. 9, 1968, the Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1968, came into force, new sections, namely, 8A, 8B and 8C were inserted in the Regulation. The agricultural operations carried on by the petitioner were carried on with the knowledge of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The petitioner spent large amounts of money in developing and cultivating the land. He planted 6,000 coconut trees, dug out wells and laid pipe lines. On January 15, 1969, the Mamlatdar, Daman, issued a show cause notice under Section 8C of the Regulation on the ground that the transfer of the said land was in contravention of the provisions of Section 8B. The petitioner and the Vendors gave a reply to the show cause notice stating that the sale was not in contravention of Sec.8B. On May 22, 1969, the Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules", were published laying, inter alia, the conditions subject to which the Collector might grant permission for transfers of land. Even though Sections 8B and 8C came into force on 9th August, 1968, the Rules were not made and published till May 22, 1969. By the order dated July 18, 1969, the Mamlatdar held that the provisions of Section 8B had not been contravened by the transfer of the land in question by the landlords to the petitioner. He further held that the transaction of sale was genuine and not with the intention of contravening any law in force. On July 15, 1970, the Collector of Daman issued a notice to the petitioners stating that the petitioner should satisfy him as to the legality and propriety of the Mamlatdars order. The Collector gave a personal hearing to the respondents Nos. 4 and 5. On August 8, 1972, the petitioner made an application for adjournment on the ground that his Advocate was unable to appear. The application was rejected. By the order dated August 14, 1972, the Collector set aside the order of the Mamlatdar and forfeited the land under Section 8C of the Regulation, as no permission was obtained from the Collector under Section 8B. On August 23, 1972, the Collector served a notice on the petitioner to vacate the land and threatened to summarily evict him if he had not complied with the notice. He therefore filed this writ petition to have the said orders quashed.
3. The case of the respondents is as follows :-
The agreement for sale dated June 7, 1968, does not constitute an assignment of land even if it is assumed that possession of the land was passed to the petitioner in pursuance of the agreement. Sections 8A, 8B and 8C of the Regulation were introd
