NNARHAR GOVIND BAKARE Vs. ADDL DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 27th June, 1984 passed by the Additional Collector, Pune, under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 directing payment of N.A. charges, N.A. conversion tax and penalty charges for N.A. purpose as well as orders passed by the Appellate and the second Appellate Authorities confirming the said order of the Additional Collector. The impugned levy has been imposed on the petitioner in respect of Survey No.1/1A and Survey No.1/1B situate at village Kothrud, Taluka Haveli, District Pune (for short the 'said land').

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that the said land originally belonged to one Bapusahadu Kamble, who was Watandar of the land. The petitioner along with five others had purchased the said land totally admeasuring about 58806 sq.ft. from the said Bapusahadu Kamble. It is the case of the petitioner that the land was purchased with a view to construct buildings on the said land having residential flats as well as shops to be sold on ownership basis. Accordingly, building plans were submitted to the Pune Municipal Corporation some time on 4th January, 1975. An application was also made to the Collector for grant of N.A. permission. However, it seems that the application made by the petitioner was returned by the Collector along with a covering letter dated 11th June, 1975 stating therein whether the original owner had paid 50% of the market value as Nazarana for converting the said land into a non-agricultural land. In the meanwhile, the petitioner and the co-owners started construction of the building on the said land. It seems that due to commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, the necessary permission for construction of the building was required to be obtained from the Competent Authority. After obtaining the necessary permission, the petitioner and the co-owners completed the project of the construction of the building having flats and shops as per the sanctioned plan.

(3.) THE petitioner filed his reply on 2nd March, 1984. In the reply, the petitioner inter alia contended that the land was already converted into N.A. in 1966 on the application made by the original owner Bapusahadu Kamble. In support of his contention the petitioner produced the challan showing that the amount of Nazarana (50)% was paid. The petitioner also raised various other contentions questioning the power of the authority to levy the penalty and N.A. charges.