ssp 1 LPA 183 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.183 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.842 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.245 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.183 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.842 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department and Anr. .....Appellants versus Ashok Dattatraya Kamate and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.V.A.Sonpal, ‘A’ Panel Counsel with Mr.A.B.Vagyani, AGP, for the appellants. Mr.T.S.Ingale, for the respondents. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 19 th JULY, 2011 P.C. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.842 of 2010. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the case of the petitioners is governed as per Government Resolution dated 08­09­1993 and the case of the petitioners is to be decided in the light of the same. The petitioners made an application regarding permission to allow them to ssp 2 LPA 183 of 2011 sale land, as the petitioners were given the land in question which was restricted tenure, on 11­08­1998. The question arose regarding payment of premium i.e. unearned income. The Town Planning Department of the Government fixed valuation @ `55/­ per sq.mtrs., as per order dated 15­03­2002, which is at Page 48 in the compilation. Subsequently, in view of change in policy, the Government Resolution dated 29­05­2006 was issued and the conditions regarding sale of land was modified. The question before the learned Single Judge was whether the enhanced rate as per the subsequent policy, on the date of grant of permission for sale of the land, the ready reckoner price available as on that date to be taken in account or not. The learned Single Judge found that the price of the land was fixed at `55/­ as per the earlier policy which was prevailing. The learned Single Judge found that when the valuation is decided finally, new policy will not be applicable. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the valuation was not fixed earlier and it was not final valuation. We are not in a position to the accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is required to be noted that subsequent correspondence between the parties shows that as back as on 15­03­2002, the Assistant Director informed the petitioners that the current market value is to be taken at `55/­ and valuation is accordingly fixed before the ssp 3 LPA 183 of 2011 change in the policy. The observations of the learned Single Judge in this behalf reads as under : ­ 8 Thereafter comes the communication dated 10 July 2009. The said communication directs that the market value as on the date of passing the order of grant of permission will have to be determined and Nazrana amount will have to be fixed on the basis of the said market value. The G.R dated 8 September 1983 does not lay down that the market value on the date of passing the order of granting permission has to be considered. Obviously, the communication seems to be based on the G.R dated 29 May 2006. Clause (a) of the said resolution notes that if earlier policy has been modified and valuation has to be made not on the basis of the opinion of the Town Planning Department but on the basis of the valuation shown in the ready reckoner on the date on which permission for sale is to be granted and the said valuation shall be treated as final valuation Clause (b) of the said G.R specifically provides that the said modified decision will apply in a case where there is no valuation made as per the earlier policy or where there is no final valuation made. In the present case, final valuation was made by the Assistant Director of Town th e Planning way back on 15 March 2002 and State Government acted upon the said valuation by accepting the amount paid by the petitioners on the basis of the said valuation. The communication dated 3 April 2006 issued by the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Pune shows that the valuation made by the Assistant Director of Town Planning has been confirmed. The said confirmation is prior to the date on which subsequent G.R was issued. Hence, the said G.R will have no application to the present case. The communication dated 10 July 2009 (Exh.I) requires valuation of the said land to be made as per the ready reckoner on the date of granting permission. The requirement introduced by the G.R dated 29 May 2006 has been incorporated in the said communication. It is obvious that the said G.R had no application to the ssp 4 LPA 183 of 2011 application made by the petitioners. Hence, the application made by the petitioners will have to be considered in accordance with the earlier G.R dated 8th September 1983. 3. Considering the fact that valuation is already fixed and finalized as back as in the year 2002, the subsequent change in the policy will not be applicable as the new policy itself provides that when the valuation is already fixed, the subsequent policy will not be applicable. We do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge by which the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioners dated 11­08­1998 in accordance with law and in the light of the G.R. dated 08­09­1993. We do not find any substance in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, civil application No. 245 of 2011 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. 5. Since the appeal was filed after considerable period and we have condoned the delay of 200 days by directing the Government to pay costs of `10,000/­, the power of attorney of the respondents is entitled to withdraw the same unconditionally. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )