2020 (9) TMI 1315 - SC - Indian Laws

Recovery of interest, penalty and recovery expenses as arrears of land revenue - failure of the Appellant to handover seven tenements to government nominees as required under the conditions of exemption granted Under Sections 20 and 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - HELD THAT - The plea of the Appellant that the liability under the impugned demand rested upon Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 alone in view of the development agreement between the parties, and that the authorities had made any direct communication with the said Respondents also does not merit any consideration in view of the facts of the case coupled with the provisions of the Act. Subsequent to the grant of exemption, the Appellant entered into a development agreement with Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as early as on 29.08.1988 describing himself as the owner and also handed over the title deeds of the property - The question of any estoppel, therefore, does not arise. Shri Patil is therefore right in his submission that any dispute between the Appellant and Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 under the development agreement between them falls in the realm of a private dispute and does not detract from the exclusive liability of the Appellant under the order of exemption. The Appellant having failed to hand over the remaining seven tenements, the impugned demand dated 15.10.2005 then came to be raised by Respondent No. 1 as being the current market value rate of the remaining seven tenements pursuant to the undertaking of the Appellant dated 16.05.2005. This was preceded by repeated request to the Appellant for handing over seven tenements. Whether the competent authority under the Act possesses the power to recover the market value of seven tenements for failure to hand over possession in terms of the order of exemption? - HELD THAT - The undertaking dated 16.05.2005 by the Appellant, to pay the price of the same in the event of the failure to do so, in our opinion cannot expand the statutory powers of the competent authority under the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act. The Appellant has justifiably raised a pure question of law before us for the first time, which was acknowledged not to have been raised earlier either before the appellate authority or the High Court Under Section 38(4) of the Act. It being a pure question of law, the facts being undisputed, there are no reason not to allow the Appellant to raise the same here for the first time. The competent authority under the Act could have certainly withdrawn the exemption in the event of breach along with all its attended consequences. Failure to do so did not deprive the statutory authority of its powers to proceed appropriately under the Act. But the competent authority being a creature of the statute Under Section 2(d) of the Act, cannot act beyond its statutory jurisdiction and the exercise of its powers shall remain circumscribed by the provisions of the Act. Any undertaking by the Appellant cannot expand the statutory jurisdiction of the competent authority. The demand for the market value of the remaining seven tenements, falling outside the purview of the Act, cannot be construed as money due to the Government so as to vest in it the nature of an arrears of land revenue recoverable Under Section 265 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The order of the High Court is set aside - The appeal stands allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the demand for arrears of land revenue.
2. Authority to levy and recover the demand.
3. Compliance with conditions of exemption under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
4. Liability for breach of conditions of exemption.
5. Interpretation of statutory provisions and jurisdiction of the competent authority.
6. Applicability of the cap on tenements to be handed over.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Demand for Arrears of Land Revenue:

The Appellant was aggrieved by the High Court's order affirming a demand for Rs. 51,97,196/- plus interest, penalty, and recovery expenses as arrears of land revenue. This demand arose from the Appellant's failure to hand over seven tenements to government nominees as required under the conditions of exemption granted under Sections 20 and 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The Supreme Court found that the demand for the market value of the remaining seven tenements was beyond the statutory powers of the competent authority and thus arbitrary. The demand was deemed unsustainable as it was not within the purview of the Act.

2. Authority to Levy and Recover the Demand:

The Appellant contended that Respondent No. 1 lacked statutory authority under the Act to levy the impugned demand or recover it as arrears of land revenue. The Court concluded that the competent authority, being a creature of statute under Section 2(d) of the Act, could not act beyond its statutory jurisdiction. The demand for market value fell outside the Act's provisions and could not be considered as money due to the Government, thus not recoverable as arrears of land revenue under Section 265 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

3. Compliance with Conditions of Exemption:

The exemption granted required the Appellant to surrender 20% of the constructed area to government nominees. Despite the Appellant's failure to comply fully, the authorities did not withdraw the exemption. The Court noted that the competent authority could have withdrawn the exemption for breach, but failure to do so did not expand its statutory powers to impose the demand.

4. Liability for Breach of Conditions of Exemption:

The Appellant argued that the liability for breach rested with Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, with whom a development agreement was made. However, the Court held that the Appellant was the de facto owner and had undertaken to fulfill the exemption conditions. The dispute between the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was deemed a private matter, not affecting the Appellant's liability under the exemption order.

5. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Jurisdiction of the Competent Authority:

Sections 20 and 21 of the Act were pivotal in determining the authority's powers. The Court emphasized that any undertaking by the Appellant could not expand the statutory jurisdiction of the competent authority. The competent authority's actions must remain within the Act's provisions, and the demand was outside its statutory powers.

6. Applicability of the Cap on Tenements to be Handed Over:

The Appellant's submission regarding a 5% cap on tenements based on the judgment in M/s. Shantistar Builders was rejected. The Court clarified that the judgment was prospective in nature, and thus, the cap did not apply retroactively to the Appellant's case.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowing the appeal. The demand was deemed arbitrary and beyond the statutory powers of the competent authority, rendering it unsustainable. The judgment reinforced the limitations on statutory authority and emphasized adherence to legislative provisions.