Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5709/2006 7/ 7 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5709 of 2006
=========================================================
BHIKHUBHAI
DHANJIBHAI KESHAVBHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHAIRMAN
OF THE DISTRICT VALUATION COMMITTEE AND & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
KK TRIVEDI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR
DHIRAJLAL N VORA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS MD MEHTA, AGP for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE DN PATEL
Date
: 10/04/2006
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.M.D.Mehta waives service of
notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2. This
petition has been preferred against the Resolution No.31 dated 17th
February,2006 (7th March,2006) passed by the respondent
No.1 ? Chairman of the District Valuation Committee and The
District Collector, Surat (Annexure ?SA?? to the memo of the
petition), whereby the respondent No.1 has fixed the market value of
the land at Rs.4800/- per sq.metre for the land bearing Final Plot
No.63 of Village: Pal, Taluka: Choryasi, District: Surat, admeasuring
about 15581 per sq.metre of the land belonging to the petitioner,
under the Bombay Land Revenue Code,1879 for the non-agricultural use
of the land.
3. Learned
advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Resolution No.31 has
been passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner. Previously, the market value of the land belonging to the
petitioner was already fixed by the Town Planning Officer
at Rs. 1486/- per sq.metre. This price has
been upset by the respondent and fixed at Rs.4800/- per sq.metre.
and that too, without giving any opportunity of
being heard to the petitioner. Moreover, the documents upon which the
respondent has relied upon has not been supplied to the petitioner.
4. Learned
advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment
delivered by this Court in the case of Harijan Vithalbhai
Madhavbhai V/s.Krishnamurthy, The Collector, Baroda & Anr.
reported in 1976 GLR 525 as well as in the case of
Jayantibhai Naranbhai Amin & Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat &
Ors. reported in AIR 2002 Gujarat 193 and submitted that
the opportunity of being heard ought to be given to the petitioner
before fixing the market value of the land
belonging to the petitioner. The market value arrived at by the
respondent of the land belonging to the petitioner is unreasonably
excessive and exorbitant and, therefore, the impugned Resolution
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents submitted
that the Resolution No.31 dated 17th February,2006 passed
by the respondent No.1 ? Chairman of the District Valuation
Committee and The District Collector, Surat (Annexure ?SA?? to the
memo of the petition) is true, correct and in
consonance with the facts of the present case. The land, which
is situated in the nearby vicinity of the land is fixed at Rs.7600/-
per sq.metre., the price whereof is much higher than the price of the
land belonging to the petitioner, and, therefore, the price of the
land belonging to the petitioner assessed at Rs.4800/- per sq.metre,
looking to the nature of the land, potential use of the land and such
other relevant factors, is reasonable, just and proper and therefore,
petition may not be entertained by this Court.
6. Having
heard the learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, Resolution No.31 dated 17th
February,2006 (7th March,2006) passed by the
respondent No.1 ? Chairman of the District Valuation Committee and
The District Collector, Surat (Annexure ?SA?? to the memo of the
petition) deserves to be quashed and set aside, for the following
facts and reasons :-
(i) It
appears from the fact of the present case that the price of the land
belonging to the petitioner has already been assessed and the market
value has been fixed at Rs.1486/- per
sq.metre by the Deputy Town Planing Officer. The Resolution No.31 has
been passed by upsetting the limited valuation of the land belonging
to the petitioner. The opportunity of being heard ought to be given
to the petitioner. Looking to the facts of the case, no opportunity
of being heard has been given to the petitioner. There is a violation
of principle of natural justice. The documents, upon which the
respondent has relied for arriving at the market value of the land
bearing Final Plot No.63 admeasuring 15581 per sq.metre situated at
Village: Pal, Taluka: Choryasi, District: Surat, has never been
supplied to the petitioner. The documents upon which the respondent
has relied upon, which are covered by the
Right to Information Act,2005, the copies whereof the document ought
to have been supplied to the petitioner so that the petitioner can
properly represent his case before the concerned authority. The
petitioner is saddled with the liability of
amount of huge premium of Rs.5,23,52,160/- under the Bombay Land
Revenue Code,1879 for the non-agricultural use of the land. Thus, the
respondent has relied upon the valuation of the nearby land, which
has not been made known to the petitioner, otherwise, the petitioner
could have brought to the notice of the respondent authority that the
market price of nearby vicinity is fixed at
Rs.7600/-, as per Government, is not comparable with the land
of the petitioner. Unilateral comparison
of the land situated in the vicinity,
always affects the right of the petitioner. Adequate opportunity of
being heard ought to have been given to the petitioner.
(ii) It
has been held and decided by this Court in the case of Harijan
Vithalbhai Madhavbhai V/s.Krishnamurthy, The Collector, Baroda &
Anr. reported in 1976 GLR 525 as well as in the case of
Jayantibhai Naranbhai Amin & Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat &
Ors. reported in AIR 2002 Gujarat 193 and it has been
pointed out that while arriving at market value of the land, the
petitioner ought to be heard and the market value as on date of
application ought to have been arrived at and in the facts of the
present case, opportunity of being heard was not given to the
petitioner.
(iii) In
view of the orders passed in similarly situated matters bearing
Special Civil Application Nos.951 of 2006, 19244 of 2005 and 888 of
2006 order dated 9th March,2006 also the impugned order
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. As
a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, Resolution
No.31 dated 17th February,2006 (7th March,2006)
passed by the respondent no.1 committee, for the land bearing Final
Plot No.63 admeasuring about 15581 per sq.metre [Block No.470 (Old
Revenue Survey No. 508+510/2,+511 admeasuring about 22258 per
sq.metre.] of Village:Pal, Taluka-Choryasi, District-Surat, belonging
to the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent
No.1 ? Chairman of the District Valuation Committee and The
District Collector, Surat is hereby directed to hear the petitioner
and permit him to submit all the relevant documents and thereafter,
decide afresh the market value of the petitioner within four weeks
from the date of receipt of writ of the order, in view of aforesaid
observations and judicial pronouncements. Rule made absolute to the
aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
(D.N.PATEL,J)
*dipti
Top