STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NITINBHAI DAHYABHAI KHUNT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal is directed against an interim-order dtd. 24/3/2021 passed in Civil Application (For Direction) 2 of 2019 arsing out of Special Civil Application 20682 of 2017 where-under learned Single Judge has partly allowed the said Civil Application and has directed the respondent authorities to accept the premium of the subject land from the present applicants as per the existing Jantri rate prevailing on 24/3/2021 which may be paid by the applicant within a period of one month from the date of order.

(2.) This appeal has been filed belatedly and as such, an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has been preferred seeking condonation of delay of 79 days in filing the appeal. In the normal circumstances, we would have issued notice on the delay application as well as the appeal as there has been short delay with possible acceptance of the cause shown for such short delay. As to whether any purpose would be served by issuing notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as appeal, we have incidentally examined the merits of the case and find that appeal itself is liable to be dismissed at the threshold as it is without any merit and learned Single Judge having taken note of the interest of both the parties has issued the direction to the State to accept the premium on Jantri value, for the reasons indicated herein below.

(3.) Smt. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State would contend that amount of premium which requires to be calculated would be on the basis of the order that would be passed by the Collector and the date cannot be altered and as such, by relying upon the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors., v. State of Gujarat & Anr ., reported in (2014) 5 SCC 199, and by drawing our attention to paragraph 21, where-under, it has been held, 'the Jantri rate to be applied will be on the date of the sanction by the Collector.' There cannot be any dispute to the said proposition and this Court is also in agreement with the submission made by the learned Government Pleader. However, at the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that respondents 1 and 2 herein, had the benefit of order of the SSRD dtd. 22/8/2014. Thus, for the last ten (10) years respondents 1 and 2 even after having obtained the said order are not in a position to pay or remit the premium as per the Jantri value. The Jantri value is a fluctuating component that would be determined by the State. If on account of pendency of litigation the Collector is unable to pass the order for collecting the premium, the applicants cannot be punished by calling upon such applicants to pay premium as on the date of order that is being passed by the Collector. As noticed herein above, on account of the order passed by the SSRD dtd. 22/8/2014, pendency of the Special Civil Application has precluded the Collector from passing an order for collection of premium from petitioner. Mere pendency of the litigation would not entitle the State to take a stand that order passed by the SSRD would not be complied. To put it differently, the applicants namely respondents 1 and 2 herein being the beneficiary of the order dtd. 22/8/2014 would be eligible to have the fruits of the said order from the date such order came to be passed and in the event of Special Civil Application being dismissed, and a consequential order is passed by the Collector, by virtue of the order dtd. 22/8/2014 passed by the SSRD and thereafter calling upon the applicant to pay the Jantri value at that point of time which may be prevailing, is not only onerous, but also harsh and as such, learned Single Judge has taken note of this fact and to secure the interest of the State as well as that of respondents 1 and 2 herein would not be entitled to claim equities has issued direction under the impugned order by directing the respondents to accept the premium of the subject land as per the existing Jantri value prevailing as on the date of the order i.e. 24/3/2021. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that contention raised by the learned Government Pleader cannot be accepted and it stands rejected. Even if the order of the SSRD were to be set aside by the learned Single Judge, adjudicating Special Civil Application 20682 of 2017, the amount that is being paid by way of premium by respondents 1 and 2 herein has been ordered to be refunded within eight (8) weeks from the date of such order and as such, no prejudice would be caused to State. This direction would also take care of the interest of the applicants, namely respondents 1 and 2 herein, as well as the State since there is no direction to pay any interest, if amount is to be refunded by State to respondents herein. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that final orders which have been passed by the co- ordinate Benches relating to the 'Bhudan land' and which has been referred to in paragraph 4 of the impugned order has also been taken note of by the learned Single Judge to issue directions. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality having been committed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, if notice is being issued to the respondents on the application for condonation of delay and the appeal is kept pending, it would not serve any purpose much less fruitful purpose and as such, the application as well as the appeal both stands rejected. Pending application if any, stands consigned to records.