PATEL GORDHANBHAI SHANKARBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSIDERING the scope of controversy the petition is required to be heard and finally disposed of today. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent authorities is directed to waive service.

(2.) THE facts stated briefly are that petitioner was granted land bearing Old Survey No. 1785, New Survey No. 894 of Village Mansa, Tal. Mansa, Dist: Gandhinagar admeasuring 2 Hectors- 46 Are - 86 Square Metres under mutation Entry NO. 14791 with restrictive conditions under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act ). Admittedly the petitioner had made payment for the same. Subsequently upon death of one of the occupiers Patel Prahladbhai Joytaram names of heirs came to be mutated and subsequently after proceedings under Section 84 (C) of the Act which came to be cancelled the land has remained with the petitioners. The petitioners sought permission to change the use of the land for putting up residential premises. District Level Valuation Committee (DLVC) at its meeting held on 06/03/2006 fixed the price of the land at rate of Rs. 1,050/- per square metre for charging as amount to be collected on granting of permission for conversion. As per Government Resolution dated 18/12/2004, in a case where the valuation of the land exceeds sum of Rs. 50 Lacs or more the opinion recorded by DLVC is not final and the District Collector is required to forward the case to the State Government for being referred to the State Level Valuation Committee (SLVC) for adjudication. Accordingly vide communication dated 23/05/2006 (Annexure VII forming part of affidavit in reply dated 07/08/2008) the Collector forwarded the papers of the case to the State Government.

(3.) BEFORE the SLVC could record a decision it appears that Mamlatdar, Mansa recorded a statement of the petitioner as to whether the petitioner was ready and willing to make payment of the amount fixed by the DLVC. However, as the petitioner had already made a representation against the said valuation on 28/03/2006 petitioner declined to make the payment at the rate fixed by DLVC. Thereupon District Collector, Gandhinagar vide impugned communication dated 21/08/2006 informed the petitioner that as the petitioner was not ready to make payment at the rate fixed by DLVC, the application for conversion made by the petitioner was filed.