9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the impugned Amendment Rules of 1977 are bad in law and void since they seek to levy revenue on the land used for non-agricultural purposes retrospectively. 2. Whether the attempt to validate the levy, assessment, and collection of the non-agricultural assessment by the Gujarat Ordinance No. 20 of 1980 or the Gujarat Act No. 2 of 1981 was abortive. 3. Whether the impugned Amendment Rules of 1977 are ultra vires Section 48 and/or Section 45 and/or Section 52 of the Code. 4. Whether the impugned Amendment Rules of 1977 are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Whether the proviso to Rule 81(2) of the impugned Amendment Rules of 1977 is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. Summary: Issue 1: Retrospective Levy of Revenue The Supreme Court addressed the contention that the 1977 Rules, promulgated on 24th January 1978 and brought into force retrospectively from 1st September 1976, were ultra vires and void. The appellant argued that Section 214 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code did not empower the State Government to frame rules with retrospective effect. However, the Court found that the amendment of Section 214 by the Gujarat Ordinance No. 20 of 1980 and its subsequent enactment as an Act on 24th February 1981, which allowed for retrospective rule-making, was valid. The Court held that the legislative intent to validate the rules retrospectively was clear and legally sound. Issue 2: Validation of Levy and Collection The appellant contended that the attempt to validate the levy, assessment, and collection of the non-agricultural assessment by the Gujarat Ordinance No. 20 of 1980 or the Gujarat Act No. 2 of 1981 was abortive. The Court, however, upheld the validity of the retrospective amendment, stating that the legislature had the power to retrospectively validate actions and rules, provided it had the legislative competence. The Court referenced several precedents to support the view that retrospective validation is permissible if the legislature clearly expresses its intent. Issue 3: Ultra Vires Sections 48, 45, and 52 The appellant argued that the Amendment Rules of 1977 were ultra vires Sections 48, 45, and 52 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The Court examined Section 48, which allows for different rates of assessment based on the use of the land. The Court found that the classification of land based on its location and use for assessment purposes was permissible under the Code. The differentiation in rates based on geographical location was deemed rational and related to the rental value of the land. Issue 4: Violation of Article 14 The appellant claimed that the retrospective imposition of land revenue and the geographical classification for different rates were arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the classification was based on rational criteria such as population and location, which were relevant to the rental value of the land. The Court emphasized that the retrospective application of the rules was justified due to the long interval since the last revision of assessment rates. Issue 5: Proviso to Rule 81(2) The High Court had struck down the proviso to Rule 81(2) of the Amendment Rules of 1977, which mandated double the rates for land not put to non-agricultural use within urban agglomerations. The Supreme Court did not specifically address this issue in detail in the provided text, but it is implied that the High Court's decision on this point was not contested in the appeals. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the 1977 Amendment Rules and the retrospective validation provided by the Gujarat Ordinance No. 20 of 1980 and the Gujarat Act No. 2 of 1981. The Court found no merit in the contentions raised by the appellants regarding the retrospective levy, validation, and classification of land for assessment purposes. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
|
