SCA/1114320/2000 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11143 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 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, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= ZAVERLAL KANCHANLAL MODI & 3 - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PJ VYAS for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4. MS REETA CHANDARANA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, 4, 7, MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) : 2, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 3,5 - 6. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 10/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Petitioner has challenged an order/communication dated 26.9.2000 passed by the DDO, Bharuch directing SCA/1114320/2000 2/4 JUDGMENT the petitioner to approach the Collector for fixation of the premium payable by the petitioner for breach of certain conditions. 2. Shortly stated, it appears that with respect to the land of the petitioner, question of payment of premium of conversion from new tenure land to old tenure land cropped up. Though at one stage, the petitioner was contending that the land is an old tenure land, he gave up the challenge and agreed to pay reasonable premium that may be fixed by the authorities and eventually, the Government by order dated 7.4.98 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat, directed that the petitioner should pay premium of Rs.66,520/- and also provided that the District Development Officer shall recover fine for breach of condition of non-agricultural use of the land. It was at that stage that DDO passed the impugned communication dated 26.9.2000 and conveyed to the petitioner that the premium fixed was with reference to the year 1980 which is inadequate and the petitioner should approach the Collector for fixation of the premium afresh. 3. Before this Court on 28.11.07, it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that pursuant to order dated 16.4.98, the petitioner had paid the premium amount of Rs.66,520/-. Advocates for the respondents were given time to ascertain this fact. Today, learned advocate for the petitioner produced a copy of SCA/1114320/2000 3/4 JUDGMENT receipt of payment having been made on 15.6.98. Counsel for the respondents do not dispute this position. 4. It would thus appear that though the Government permitted the petitioner to pay premium of Rs.66,520/- and the petitioner did pay the said premium immediately, DDO thought otherwise and directed the petitioner to have the premium re-fixed by the Collector as the same was inadequate. 5. To my mind, the procedure adopted by the DDO and the Collector is wholly impermissible. Learned advocate Ms.Mandavia appearing for the DDO stated that the said communication was on the basis of the stand of the Collector suggesting that the premium fixed was inadequate. To my mind, neither the Collector nor the DDO could question the fixation of the premium by the Additional Chief Secretary. The said order, if at all, had to be challenged in accordance with law. Admittedly, the same has not been done. In face of the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, the DDO only had to proceed further for collecting fine for breach of conditions. It was not open for the DDO to question the adequacy of the premium fixed by the Government. 6. Under the circumstances, the impugned communication is quashed. The DDO shall, however, ascertain the fine that the petitioner shall have to pay for breach of conditions and would be entitled to SCA/1114320/2000 4/4 JUDGMENT charge reasonable interest thereon, if found necessary. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. No costs. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)