2014 (2) TMI 1339 - SC - Indian Laws

Land Transfer Regulations Upheld: State's Right to Impose Conditions Validated

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, affirming the State's right to ... Validity of Section 43 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as applicable to the State of Gujarat - Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - rates of premium to be paid to the State Government for converting, transferring, and for changing the use of land from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes - minimum valuation of land as per the rates contained in the list called as “Jantri” prevalent since 20.12.2006. Held that:- The amount which is being charged is not a tax but a fee. It is a premium for granting the sanction. This is because under this welfare statute these lands have been permitted to be purchased by the tenants at a much lesser price - The tenant is supposed to cultivate the land personally. It is not to be used for non agricultural purpose. A benefit is acquired by the tenant under the scheme of the statute, and therefore, he must suffer the restrictions which are also imposed under the same statute. The idea in insisting upon the premium is also to make such transfers to nonagricultural purpose unattractive. The intention of the statute is reflected in Section 43, and if that is the intention of the Legislature there is no reason why the Courts should depart therefrom while interpreting the provision. Jantri rates - Held that:- The Jantri rate to be applied will be on the date of the sanction by the Collector, and not on the date of the application made by the party. Rule 25C of the Rules makes it clear that transfer of an agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose is not easy. It is only sub-clause (e) thereof under which such a transferor will have to make his case which is when a transfer is sought for a bonafide purpose. Even so, this does not absolve one from taking any prior sanction. It will only mean that if the application is bonafide, normally the transfer will be sanctioned, because as such there is no right to insist on a transfer for non-agricultural purpose. Period for considering the application, and granting the sanction - Held that:- Such application cannot be kept pending indefinitely, and therefore we would expect the Collector to decide such applications as far as possible within 90 days from the receipt of the application - In the event the application is not being decided within 90 days, we expect the Collector to record the reasons why the decision is getting belated. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues Involved:1. Validity of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act).2. Validity of the Gujarat Government Resolution dated 4.7.2008.3. Challenge to the minimum valuation of land as per the 'Jantri' rates since 20.12.2006.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act:The appeals question the validity of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act, which restricts the transfer of land purchased or sold under the Act without prior sanction from the Collector and payment of an amount determined by the State Government. The section was amended in 1960 and 1977 to include the requirement of payment to the State for such transfers. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these amendments, noting that the State is theoretically the owner of all land and can impose such conditions. The Court cited the Gujarat High Court's decision in Shashikant Mohanlal Vs. State of Gujarat and the Supreme Court's decision in Patel Ambalal Gokalbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, which both affirmed the State's right to charge a premium for permitting land transfers.2. Validity of the Gujarat Government Resolution dated 4.7.2008:The resolution simplifies the procedure for converting land from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes and sets the premium rates based on the 'Jantri' rates. The appellants argued that the high premium rates (80% of the Jantri value) amounted to expropriation and violated Article 300A of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, found that the premium is a consideration for granting the transfer, not a tax or fee, and is justified as the land was initially purchased at a lower price under the welfare statute. The Court noted that the premium had been reduced to 40% after the High Court's judgment, making it reasonable.3. Challenge to the Minimum Valuation of Land as per the 'Jantri' Rates:The appellants contended that the Jantri rates should be applied based on the date of the application for transfer, not the date of the Collector's decision. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that Section 43 requires previous sanction, and thus the Jantri rate at the date of sanction is applicable. The Court emphasized that the intention of the statute is to make transfers for non-agricultural purposes unattractive, aligning with the welfare objectives of the Tenancy Act.Additional Considerations:The Supreme Court acknowledged the appellants' grievance regarding delays in deciding transfer applications and directed that such applications should be decided within 90 days, with reasons recorded for any delays beyond this period.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals, upholding the validity of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act, the Gujarat Government Resolution dated 4.7.2008, and the use of Jantri rates for determining the premium for land transfers. The Court directed timely decision-making on transfer applications to avoid undue delays.