4 Whether This Case Involves A ... vs Secretary Revenue Department ...

on 24 June, 2016

Gujarat High Court

4 Whether This Case Involves A ... vs Secretary Revenue Department ... on 24 June, 2016
C/SCA/13504/2014 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13504 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed

to see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of

the judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of

law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
KANTILAL RAMSWARUP SHAH....Petitioner(s)
Versus
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT (APPEALS) & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MM SAIYED, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VENUGOPAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

Date : 24/06/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/192370658/ 1

 4 Whether This Case Involves A ... vs Secretary Revenue Department ... on 24 June, 2016

HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Wed Jun 29 01:50:09 IST 2016 C/SCA/13504/2014 JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition, challenging the order dated 30th September,
2006 (Annexure-E) passed by the respondent No.2 Collector and the order dated 20th June, 2014
(Annexure-G) passed by the respondent No.1 S.S.R.D.

2. In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner was allotted the land bearing Survey No.259
paiki admeasuring 1 hectare 34 Are and 19 sq. mtr., of the Village Garudeshwar, District Nandod, for
the purpose of excavation of black trap stone for five years, as per the lease deed dated 17.5.1996.
The said lease deed came to be renewed for a period of ten years on 19.9.2001 (Annexure-A),
pursuant to the order of renewal passed by the Collector, Narmada vide the order at Annexure-B. It
further appears that the respondent No.2 Collector in the year 2006 issued show-cause notices to
various land owners including the petitioner in respect of recovery of conversion tax and special cess
for using the lands for non-agricultural purpose. The Collector thereafter passed the impugned
order dated 30th September, 2006 (Annexure-E) under Section 67A of the Gujarat Land Revenue
Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), calling upon the petitioner to pay the conversion tax to
the tune of Rs.3,34,131/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred Revision
Petition before the respondent No.1 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Wed Jun 29 01:50:09 IST 2016
C/SCA/13504/2014 JUDGMENT under Section 211 of the Code. The said Revision Petition came to
be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 20.6.2014 (Annexure-G). Hence, the petitioner has
filed the present petition.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Saiyed submitted that the petitioner was allotted the
land in question vide the lease deed executed in the year 1996, subject to the conditions mentioned
therein, under the provisions of the Gujarat Mines and Mineral Rules, 1966 and, therefore, the
petitioner is not liable to pay any conversion tax as contemplated under Section 67A of the Code,
apart from the fact, that no such tax was asked to be paid while executing the lease deed in the year
1996 and also at the time of renewal of the said lease deed in the year 2001 for ten years. According
to him, all of a sudden the respondent No.2 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner as the
revenue of the Government had gone down as transpiring from the impugned order itself passed by
the Collector.

4. However, the learned AGP, placing reliance on the provisions of Section 67A of the Code read
with the conditions mentioned in the lease deed, submitted that the petitioner had failed to pay the
conversion tax though the lad was being used for non-agricultural purpose, and therefore, he was
liable to pay the said conversion tax as per the order of the Collector.

5. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the land in question was allotted to the petitioner
HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Wed Jun 29 01:50:09 IST 2016 C/SCA/13504/2014 JUDGMENT in
the year 1996 by the Collector, by executing the lease deed under the provisions contained in the
Gujarat Mines and Mineral Rules, 1966. It is also not disputed that there was no condition in the
original lease deed executed in the year 1996 as well as in the lease deed renewed in the year 2001 to
the effect that the petitioner was liable to pay the conversion tax as contemplated under Section 67A
of the Code. On the contrary, as transpiring from the conditions mentioned in the lease deed

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/192370658/ 2

 4 Whether This Case Involves A ... vs Secretary Revenue Department ... on 24 June, 2016

(Annexure-A), granting of the said land was not to be construed as bar of any of the Rules i.e. 67, 68,
69 and 70 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules. The learned AGP has failed to point out as to under
which provision of Section 67A, the Collector had called upon the petitioner to pay the conversion
tax. When the land was allotted to the petitioner by the competent Authority under the Gujarat
Mines and Mineral Rules, 1966 for specific purpose of removing black trap stones, there was no
question of the petitioner applying to the Collector for using the land for non-agricultural purpose,
which would entail payment of conversion tax under Section 67A of the Code. The learned AGP has
fairly submitted that as such there was no condition imposed in the lease deed for the payment of
conversion tax at the time of allotment of land in the year 1996 and even while renewing the said
lease in the year 2001.

6. Under the circumstances, the impugned o

HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Wed Jun 29 01:50:09 IST

C/SCA/13504/2014 JUDGMENT

passed by the Collector for the recovery of the conversion tax under Section 67A of the Code, on the
lease deed executed under the provisions contained in Gujarat Mines and Mineral Rules, 1966,
being illegal, deserves to be quashed and set aside. The impugned order passed by the respondent
No.1, mechanically confirming the said order of the respondent No.2 Collector also deserves to be
quashed and set aside.

7. In that view of the matter, both the impugned orders being illegal are quashed and set aside. The
petition stands allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute.

(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.) vinod HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Wed Jun 29 01:50:09 IST 2016

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/192370658/ 3