BHOJRAJ DANUMAL THAKKER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Collector of Banaskantha at Palanpur (respondent No. 2 herein) on 8th December, 1983 as affirmed in revision by the order passed by the State Government (respondent No. 1 herein) on 23rd April, 1984 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 2 directed the petitioners to pay the additional premium amount in the sum of Rs. 30676.44 ps. for conversion of one parcel of land bearing survey No. 199+200+201 (part) admeasuring 7 acres 24 gunthas (equivalent to 30712 square metres) situated at Dhanera District Banaskantha (the disputed land for convenience) from new tennure to old tennure.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The disputed land was a new tenure land in the hands of the petitioners. They applied on 5th January 1982 to respondent No. 2 for conversion of the disputed land from new tenure to old tenure. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. By the order passed on 11th July, 1986, respondent No. 2 directed the petitioners to pay the premium amount in the sum of Rs. 38345.55 ps. within one month from the date of the order towards the premium for the purpose. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. It appears that the petitioners paid the premium amount on 21st July, 1983. It however appears that the premium was fixed in accordance with the Government Resolution of 20th May, 1980. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. It appears that in the meantime the State Government issued another resolution on 13th July, 1983 revising upward the premium amount for the purpose from 50% to 90% of the market value. Its copy is at Annexure-E to this petition. Thereupon respondent No. 2 issued one communication to the petitioners on 12th August, 1983 calling upon them to pay the difference premium amount in the sum of Rs. 30676.44 ps. being the difference between 50% premium amount and the 90% premium amount. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. The petitioners paid the additional premium amount within the stipulated time-limit but objected to levy thereof by the communication of 29th August, 1983. Its copy is at Annexure-F to this petition. Thereafter by the order passed by respondent No. 2 on 1st December, 1982, respondent No. 2 granted to the petitioners permission to use the disputed land for non- agricultural purposes on payment of the premium amount as fixed earlier and on certain terms and conditions. Its copy is at Ahnexure-G to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners carried the matter in revision before respondent No. 1 under Sec. 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code for brief). By the order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 23rd April, 1984 but communicated on 20th May, 1984, respondent No. 1 rejected the aforesaid revisional application. Its copy is at Annexure-H to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure G to this petition as affirmed in revision by the order at Annexure-H to this petition and for refund of the additional amount directed to be paid by respondent No. 2 by the order at Annexure-D to this petition.

(3.) Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Sompura for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection against maintainability of this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Thereupon learned Advocate Shri Patel for the petitioners orally applies for leave to convert this petition as also under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Such oral request is accepted and this petition is ordered to be treated as also under Art. 226 of the Constitution on payment of the deficit court-fees, if any, within four weeks from today.