Chanduji Motiji and Others vs State of Gujarat and 1 Another

Sonia Gokani, J.—By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the act of the respondents, whereby the respondent No. 2 has issued a notice dated January 18, 1996 u/s 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). It is the say of the petitioners that on November 25, 1994 the petitioners applied for conversion of the land bearing Block No. 227 situated at village Manipur, Taluka Sanand, District Ahmedabad, admeasuring H-1-38-61-sq. mtrs, from new tenure to old tenure on payment of prescribed amount of premium from the competent authority for the purpose of constructing residential premises. The competent authority vide order dated April 17, 1995 had directed the petitioners to pay the premium price, which came to Rs. 2,90,835/- for the purpose of conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure. Such amount was to be paid within a period of 21 days. The order dated April 17, 1995 was received by the petitioners on April 18, 1995. Accordingly, the said amount was deposited by the petitioners on May 08, 1995. It appears that the order of conversion since was not passed by the respondent-authority, once again on October 17, 1995 an application was moved for passing an appropriate order of conversion. However, on January 18, 1996, the respondent No. 2 issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why no action shall be taken against the petitioners u/s 84C of the Act.

Heard the learned advocate Mr. Champaneri appearing for the petitioners, who has urged that instead of passing an appropriate order of conversion after having received the prescribed amount of premium meant for conversion as was directed by the respondent-authority, the impugned notice has been issued which itself is contrary to law. The provision of section 84C of the Act speaks that disposal or transfer of such land is invalid in certain conditions, whereas in the present case what the petitioners were required to do on their part, the same had already been done by them and it was for the respondents to act and pass an appropriate order. He has also relied upon the Resolution dated December 21, 1983 passed by the Revenue Department of the respondent-State, which specifies that within a period of 21 days of the direction, the prescribed amount of premium needs to be paid and on deposition of such prescribed amount of premium, within a period of three days, the order of conversion of the land essentially is required to be passed by the competent authority. He also urged that when the respondents have acted in complete breach of such directions, this Court needs to intervene.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Kabir Hathi appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that no written instructions have been received so far from the Government though the learned Assistant Government Pleader has specifically communicated on earlier occasions as well as on November 11, 2013. He has fairly admitted that the Court may pass an appropriate order keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the present case.

Upon thus hearing both the sides, when it becomes patently clear that the respondent No. 2 issued an order dated April 17, 1995 directing the petitioner to deposit the prescribed premium amount of Rs. 2,90,835/- and pursuant to such order, when the prescribed amount had been paid on May 08, 1995 i.e. on 21st day from the date of receipt of such order, as prescribed under the aforesaid resolution dated December 21, 1983, it was for the respondent No. 2 to pass an appropriate order in respect of the application for converting the land from new tenure to old tenure. Even if there was any query or there was any reason for non-grant of such application, the same ought to have been communicated to the petitioners. Instead of it, there appears to be an impugned notice issued u/s 84C of the Act, specifically mentioning therein that without prior permission such work of road has already been initiated by the present petitioners. As both the sides are clueless in respect of the present status of the said land, without dealing further with the merits, the respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order on the application moved by the petitioners on November 25, 1994 and further communication dated October 17, 1995, within a period of fortnight from the date of receipt of this order, if no such order is passed till date. If the petitioners are aggrieved by such order to be passed, they shall be entitled to challenge the same in accordance with law.

The application stands disposed of Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.