TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Validity of Bombay Tenancy Act Section 43 upheld under Constitution's 9th Schedule; jantri application clarified.</h1> <h3>PATEL KAMALBHAI SHARADBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2</h3> The court upheld the validity of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, stating it is protected under the 9th Schedule of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.2. Validity of the resolution dated 4.7.2008 issued by the State Government.3. Validity and application of the jantri (minimum valuation of land) effective from 1.4.2008.4. Retrospective or prospective effect of the resolution dated 4.7.2008.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:The petitioners challenged the validity of Section 43 on several grounds, including:- Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f): Petitioners argued that Section 43 is ultra vires these Articles as it imposes unreasonable restrictions on the transfer of land, which was not originally subject to such burdens at the time of deemed purchase on 1.4.1957.- Arbitrary Powers: The provision does not lay down guidelines for determining the amount payable to the State Government, leading to arbitrary executive powers without corrective mechanisms.- Excessive Delegation: The provision was claimed to delegate essential legislative powers excessively without proper guidelines, violating Article 14.- Misinterpretation of 'Consideration': Petitioners argued that the 'consideration' mentioned should be payable to the vendor (original tenant) rather than the State Government.Court's Findings:- The court upheld the validity of Section 43, stating that it is part of agrarian reform and is protected under the 9th Schedule of the Constitution, thus immune from challenges based on violation of fundamental rights.- The court found that the amendment did not change the basic philosophy or main objective of the Act, which is agrarian reform.- The court emphasized that the State is theoretically the owner of all lands, and the restrictions imposed by Section 43 are regulatory to ensure that lands acquired under beneficial legislation are not transferred for profit, defeating the purpose of the grant.2. Validity of the Resolution Dated 4.7.2008:The resolution aimed to simplify the process of transferring land from new tenure to old tenure (agriculture to non-agriculture) by using the jantri for valuation.Petitioners' Arguments:- Arbitrary and Discriminatory: The resolution was claimed to be arbitrary and discriminatory as it imposed high premiums without a proper mechanism for challenging the jantri rates.- Excessive Delegation: The resolution was argued to delegate excessive powers to the executive without proper guidelines.Court's Findings:- The court upheld the resolution, noting that it aimed to streamline the process and reduce delays in land valuation.- The resolution was found to be more beneficial to landholders, providing clear guidelines and time limits for processing applications.- The court held that the resolution is in consonance with Section 43 and is not arbitrary.3. Validity and Application of the Jantri Effective from 1.4.2008:The jantri was challenged on the grounds of being unscientific, arbitrary, and lacking a mechanism for disputing the valuation.Court's Findings:- The court found no substantial challenge against the jantri in the petitions.- The State Government's affidavit detailed the thorough process followed in preparing the jantri, including public consultations and expert committee reviews.- The court noted that the jantri was subject to future modifications and found no reason to interfere with it.4. Retrospective or Prospective Effect of the Resolution Dated 4.7.2008:Petitioners argued that the resolution should not apply retrospectively to pending applications.Court's Findings:- The court held that the resolution is prospective and applies to all pending cases where permission is yet to be granted by the Collector.- The crucial date for determining the premium is the date on which the Collector grants permission, not the date of application.- The court emphasized that permissions under Section 43 can only be granted prospectively, and the valuation should be based on the prevailing rates at the time of granting permission.Conclusion:The court dismissed all the writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals, upholding the validity of Section 43, the resolution dated 4.7.2008, and the jantri effective from 1.4.2008. The resolution was deemed prospective, and the crucial date for determining the premium was the date of permission by the Collector.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
