1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1255 OF 1997 Date of decision:11/8/2010 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.DESHPANDE 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. 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 No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/1255-97wp 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1255 OF 1997 Shashikant s/o Mathyu Kamble, age 40 years, Occ. agriculture, r/o Kedgaon, Ahmednagar, Taluka and district Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Collector, Ahmednagar, Tq.Dist. Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.V.S.Bedre, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.D.R.Kale, A.G.P., for respondents. ... CORAM:R.K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE :11/8/2010 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This writ petition challenges order dated 17th April, 1996, passed by the State Government rejecting appeal filed by the present petitioner under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (For short, "MLR Code"). The order passed by the State Government does not 3 record any reasons for rejection of the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. The facts in brief leading to the case are as under: The petitioner purchased agricultural land bearing survey No.6/6 admeasuring 48 R. on 4.11.1977 from one Magan Bhaskar Pardhe by registered sale deed. The name of the petitioner is recorded in the revenue record as owner and possessor of the land in question. The case of the petitioner was that his predecessor- in-title was holder of Inam land and, after coming into force Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958, the land in question was re- granted to his predecessor-in-title under Section 5(1) of the said Act. One of the condition in the order was that if the permission is sought for conversion of user of the land for the purpose other than agricultural under the MLR Code then 50 per cent amount of the unearned income shall be required to be deposited as a fine by the holder of the land. 3. The petitioner submitted his application in the year 1986 for conversion of user of land for his bona fide residential purpose under Section 44(1) of the MLR Code. This application was processed in the light of condition of 50 per 4 cent amount as stipulated in the order of re- grant dt.8.4.1969. The market value of the property seems to have been determined in the report of the Tehsildar dt.14.7.1989 at Rs.7500/- and it was suggested that 50 per cent of this amount i.e. Rs.3750/- is required to be paid by the petitioner. However, after the process was completed, the petitioner was given communication dt.7.3.1995 informing that the 50 per cent of the market value of the land in question i.e. Rs.1,44,000/- should be paid as an unearned income as a condition precedent for grant of permission to convert the land for non agricultural use, as was applied for by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this communication dt.7.3.1995, filed an appeal under Section 257 of the MLR Code before the State Government. The State Government has, however, dismissed the said appeal by order dt.17th April, 1996, without recording any reasons. This is the order which is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 5. Shri Bedre, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that there is no basis for holding that the market value of the land on the date of submitting application was Rs. 2,88,000/- and, therefore, the petitioner was required to pay 50 per cent amount of Rs. 5 1,44,000/-. According to him, the market value of the land was assessed at Rs.7,500/- by the Tehsildar in his report and the same should have been taken as a basis for payment of 50 per cent of the unearned income, which was a condition for grant of permission under Section 44 of the MLR Code. He further submits that no reasons are recorded by the State Government while rejecting his appeal under Section 257. He submits that the State Government, under Section 257 of the MLR Code, exercises quasi-judicial powers and should have, therefore, recorded reasons for rejection of revision application. He submits that, on this sole ground, the order is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has invited my attention to the provisions of circular dt.7th April, 1959 and the condition of payment of 50 per cent of the market value of the land in question as an unearned income for granting permission under Section 44. He submits that as per letter dt.10.1.1995, issued by the State Government, the market value of the property has to be assessed on the date on which the permission is proposed to be granted and, as per the report, which was submitted by the Town Planning Department, the market value of the land was at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq.mt. and, therefore, the order dt.7.3.1995 passed by the 6 Collector, Ahmednagar, was legal, correct and proper. 7. There are several points which are required to be considered in a revision petition which was preferred under Section 257 of the MLR Code by the petitioner. The order impugned in this petition is cryptic one, without giving any reasons. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to the circular dt.7th April, 1959, along with condition no.3, in the letter of re-grant dt.8.4.1969 and has urged that it nowhere stipulates that the market value of the property has to be assessed on the date when the permission is to be granted. He submits that he had submitted an application under Section 44 of the MLR Code in the year 1986 and the market value of the property was determined at Rs.7500/-, which should have been taken as a basis. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the process of determination of the market value of the land the petitioner was not called upon to participate and to produce evidence on record as to the market value of the land. 8. As against this, learned A.G.P. has urged that the Government has issued instructions dt.10.1.1985, in consultation with the Law and Judiciary Department and also the Revenue 7 Department to the effect that the market value of the land has to be assessed on the date when the permission is to be granted. Learned Counsel further placed on record Government Resolution dt.10th March, 2000 issued in supersession of earlier Government circular dt.7th April 1959, reiterating the position as was stated in the earlier circular of 1959. 9. All the aforesaid rival submissions are required to be gone into in revisional jurisdiction by the State Government. The same have not been considered. The order is unreasoned and without application of mind. There are several aspects which are involved in the case. The order impugned, therefore, cannot be sustained. 10. In the result, the instant writ petition succeeds. (a) The order dt.17th April, 1996, passed by the State Government, in the revision petition under Section 257 of the MLR Code, filed by the petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside. (b) The matter is remitted back to the State Government for decision afresh in accordance with law after taking into consideration all the submissions and recording findings in respect of the same. 8 (c) The parties are at liberty to place before the State Government additional material as is available with them and a decision shall be taken by the State Government within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. Civil Applications, in view of the decision in the main petition, do not survive and the same are, therefore, dismissed. (R.K.DESHPANDE) JUDGE ... agp/1255-97wp