9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 13456 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13769 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14079 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14085 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14144 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14275 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14300 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14520 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15811 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15814 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1283 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1286 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1296 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14411 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11634 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11373 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12179 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10552 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10555 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10831 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10832 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10857 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11240 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11457 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11566 of 2008 With SPECI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AMAL B TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL with MR PK JANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER with MS SANGEETA VISHEN, AGP FOR THE RESPONDENT COMMON CAV JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA) The matter relates to payment of premium of land to new and indivisible tenure and restricted tenure for transferring or change of purpose for transferring from new tenure to old tenure land i.e. agriculture purpose to non-agriculture purpose. The petitioners having challenged either the validity of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act"] and/or the resolution dated 4.7.2008 issued by the State Government for giving effect to Section 43 and/or the rate of jantri i.e the minimum valuation of the land of one or the other areas, they were heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. At this stage, it may be mentioned that though a number of writ petitions were heard together, but the argument was mainly advanced by 5 to 6 senior counsel, rest of the counsel adopted the same and some of them filed written submissions highlighting the merits of their individual case. While deliberating our judgment, common a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oans Act, 1884, the Agriculturists' Loan Act, 1884, or the Bombay Non-agriculturists' Loans Act, 1928, as in force in the State of Gujarat, or in favour of a bank or co-operative society, and without prejudice to any other remedy open to the State Government, bank or co-operative society, as the case may be, in the event of his making default in payment of such loan in accordance with the terms on which such loan was granted, it shall be lawful for the State Government, bank or co-operative society, as the case may be, to cause his interest in the land to be attached and sold and the proceeds to be applied in payment of such loan. Explanation, - For the purposes of this sub-section, "bank" means - (a) the State Bank of India constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955; (b) any subsidiary bank as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959; (c) any corresponding new bank as defined in clause (d) of section 2 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970; (d) the Agricultural Refinance and Development Corporation, established under the Agricultural Refinance and Development Corpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred on the tenant under Section 32 was transferable, if so permitted by the District Collector. Original Section 43 did not contain any provision for payment of any amount like premium to anybody in the eventuality of the land being transferred. It was contended that the petitioners do not challenge the constitutional validity of the provisions regarding control and regulation for transfer of occupancy conferred under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. The challenge is only in respect of the part of the provision, which provides for payment of amount to the State Government whereby the occupancy which did not carry any burden of payment of any amount to the State Government on 1.4.1957 is materially altered by imposing restrictions regarding payment of amount to the Government initially by Amendment Act No. XVI of 1960 and further by Amendment Act No. XXX of 1977 whereby the phraseology of Section 43 is further amended by adding the word "consideration", which did not occur in Section 43 after the amendment made by Act No. XVI of 1960. In view of the settled legal position, the Act was validly enacted with reference to the constitutional provisions of Article 19(1)(f) as was in oper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8) 2 SCC 104, etc. (iv) The challenge to the constitutional validity has been made on the ground of excessive delegation of essential legislative powers. According to the petitioners, in view of the scheme of the Constitution, the legislative powers are conferred on the respective State legislation as well as the Parliament. It is the function and privilege of the legislature to legislate on the subjects incorporated in the entries in the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India. In absence of any methodology provided under Section 43 for determination of the amount and parameters to exercise powers to determine the amount, either under Section 43 or under the Tenancy Act, Section 43 amounts to excessive delegation of essential legislative powers and, thereby, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the following Supreme Court decisions :- (a) Krishna Mohan (P) Ltd. vs. MCD, (2003) 7 SCC 151 (b) Bhatnagars & Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 478 (c) Hamdard Dawakhana vs. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 554 (d) MP High Court Bar Association vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 4114 (v) Section 43 is violative of Article 14 and Article 300A of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment on the basis of the letter dated 31.3.2008 of the Revenue Department and circular dated 31.3.2008 of the Superintendent of Stamps, adopted common formula by the impugned resolution dated 4.7.2008. Thus, it was issued with a view to bring simplification in the method of transferring the land of new and indivisible tenure i.e. restricted tenure to old tenure i.e. from agriculture purpose to nonagriculture purpose. The relevant portion of the English version, as submitted by the petitioners, is quoted hereunder :- Regarding bringing simplification in the procedure of converting the land of new of tenure under new and impartible tenure and under the restricted tenure of Tenancy Act in to old tenure for the agricultural or Non-agricultural purpose. Government Of Gujarat Revenue Department Resolution No. NSJ-102006-571-J( Part-2) Sachivalaya Gandhinagar. Dated 04/07/2008 Preamble:- The prior permission of the Collector shall be required to be obtained after making payment of the consideration prescribed by the State Government, by issuing special or general order for transferring any land purchased by the tenants, under Sections- 17-kh, 32, 32-chh, 32-t, 32-d , 32-bh & 43-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er consideration of the Government to bring simplification by applying the procedure of valuation based on jantri by making change in existing valuation procedure and by putting into force one resolution in this regard instead of different resolutions. -:: R E S O L U T I ON ::- On the basis of the letter No.STP/102008/174/H.1 dated 31/03/2008 of the Revenue Department, for the purpose of Stamp duty , a new Jantri has been put into force by issuing the Circular No. Stamp/ Technical/ 07/08/1512 dated 31/03/2008 with effect from 01/04/2008 by the Superintendent of Stamps, Gandhinagar. After studying and careful consideration, the Government has held that the valuation of the land of new and impartible tenure and of restricted tenure type of Tenancy Act is to be done as per the rate of Jantri (as per Annual Statements of rates-2006 and as per the amendments made from time time). By consolidating all resolutions/circulars existing instructions in respect of valuation, it has been decided to follow the following procedure . 1. The new policy of the rates of premium for converting and transfer/ for change of purpose of land of new and impartible and restricted tenure land from agricu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50 % The land shall considered under old tenure after sale/transfer or change of purpose 2. The procedure of converting the land of new tenure into old tenure for the purpose of agricultural to agricultural (for the purpose of Sr. No. 1 & B(1) of the aforesaid para No.1). (A) If such lands of New Tenure and Restricted tenure under Tenancy Act have been in continuous possession for 15 year or more than it since its grant to the last date of every month, are liable to be converted into old tenure for agricultural purpose, after eliminating the entry "New & Impartible Tenure" and noting " liable for premium only for non-agricultural purpose" on its place, the Mamlatdar of concerned Taluka on his own motion shall issue such orders within 15 days and shall have to inform the concerned holder in writing. At the same time, it shall be the responsibility of the Mamalatdar to get the mutation entry of the said order entered in to the Right of Record and to get it certified as per rules. (B) In the cases also wherein, the land is required to be converted from agricultural to agricultural purpose into old tenure by recovering 50% premium or 20 times amount of assessment, the Mamalatdar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Prant officer shall have to forward the report to Collector after verification within 10 days. (B) After receiving report of Mamlatdar through Prant Officer, after verifying all record, Collector shall have to take decision within 30 (thirty) days and the said decision shall have to be informed to concerned person. the calculation of the amount of premium shall have to be made as per the rate of Jantri prevailing on the date of decision. (C) If premium is to be paid as per decision of the Collector, then on getting such information the concerned person shall have to pay the amount of premium within 21 (twenty one) days. (D) After depositing amount of such premium, the Collector shall have to pass order in this regards within 3 (three) days. (E) If amount of premium is not paid within twenty one days, then assuming that concerned person is not interested in getting permission and chapter should be filed. However, in some cases, if concerned person submits an application then and if Collector considers the reasons just, then as per the merits of the case, by the reasons to be recorded in writing, instead of 21 (twenty one) days, the Collector can extend till one year fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, by considering rate of Jantri for residential purpose and in Urban area, by considering rate of Jantri of the developed land. (e) The Collector shall have to consider rate of Jantri which are applicable to zone, ward or block where the land is situated. The rate of Jantri of other zone, ward or block shall not be considered. (f) When " rate of developed land " is not mentioned in Jantri of the area, valuation shall be made by considering the purpose and rate of prevailing Jantri of the said area. 6. Procedure for disposal of pending chapters:- (a) In the pending chapters in respect of fixing premium at district level and state level, in all chapters wherein the decision is required to be taken after 1/4/2008, the calculation of the premium shall be made on the basis of the rate as per Jantri. (b) The chapters which have not been placed in the District Valuation Committee, such chapters pending at District level, shall not be placed in the District Valuation Committee, but their valuation shall be made as per Jantri. The chapters which have been sent to the Deputy Town Planner for valuation, shall be called back and calculation of the premium shall be made on the basis o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from dtd. 01/04/2008, this issue with the concurrence of finance department vide their note dtd. 15/05/2008 and 27/06/2008 on this department file of even number. By order and in the name of Governor of Gujarat, [Anish Mankad] Joint Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Gujarat." 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners have assailed the aforesaid resolution on different counts, as discussed hereunder :- (i) The Tenancy Act does not provide for determination of premium on the basis of the market value. The schedule of rates is fixed for the purpose of levying stamp duty under the Bombay Stamps Act, which is not statutory, but it is only a guiding principle for Sub Registrar. The person presenting the document for registration can always object for the payment of stamp duty on the basis of the jantri and he can challenge the market value on the ground that it is lower than the schedule of rates as provided in the jantri. In such eventuality, detailed procedure is prescribed for determination of the market price in each case and further corrective machinery is also provided for the determination of the market value determined by the Collector, but there is no corrective ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd. If the interpretation, as the State intends to make, is accepted, then it will amount to paying premium of 50% of the market value for transfer from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose and another premium of 80% for transfer to another person, which amounts to payment of premium @ 130%. Such interpretation if accepted it will be oppressive, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (v) Section 43 gives right to transfer a property, on the other hand charging unreasonable premium on the basis of the Government Resolution will amount to deprivation of the property without authority of law and is violative of Article 300A of the Constitution. Excessive delegation of power is arbitrary and absolute discretion given without any guidelines is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Senior Supdt. of Post Office vs. Izhar Hussain, reported in AIR 1989 SC 2262. (vi) The tenant on payment of full amount of the purchase price as determined under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act, becomes the owner of the land under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. Once the tenant becomes the full owner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure i.e. from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose, determination has already been made by the District level Committee or the State level Committee and may be pending for approval of the State. In many cases, the applications have already been preferred prior to the resolution dated 4.7.2008, pending since long with the Collector. According to the petitioners in such pending cases, the impugned resolution dated 4.7.2008 cannot be made applicable. In the case of old pending applications, the earlier guidelines under which the District level Committee or the State level Committee were empowered to determine the premium are to continue with the same. 11. The learned Advocate General for the State submitted that Section 43 is a part of the steps towards a major agrarian reform to regulate and impose restriction on the transfer of agricultural lands, etc. belonging to or occupied by agriculturists, etc. The Act is covered under the protective umbrella of the 9th Schedule to the Constitution vide its Entry No. 2. He referred to the history and object with which the Tenancy Act was enacted. According to him, by the impugned amended Section 43, the basic provision of Section 43 has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... htra." 12. The learned Advocate General would contend that the Tenancy Act, 1948, the Gujarat (Amendment) Act No. XVI of 1960 and the Gujarat (Amendment) Act No. XXX of 1977 have been placed at different Entry No(s). in the 9th Schedule to the Constitution of India. In view of such inclusion, the aforesaid Acts are immuned from challenge against the their constitutionality. They cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution relating to fundamental rights. On this ground, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Patel Ambalal Gokalbhai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 316. He would further contend that even if it is considered that insertion the Amendment Act No. XXX of 1977 is subsequent to 24.4.1973 i.e. the date on which the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Keshavanand Bharati, then in that case also, there being no change in the basic philosophy or main objective of the Act by the said Amendment Act No. XXX of 1977, the said amendment Act No. XXX of 1977 would continue to be covered under the protection of Article 31-B read with 9th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons, cannot and should not be entertained in a petition where several issues have been in controversy as discussed hereinabove. 16. He would further contend that the determination of crucial date cannot be the date of application preferred for such determination, but the date on which the actual determination is made by the authorities. He distinguished the case of Union of India vs. Mahajan Industries Ltd., reported in (2005) 10 SCC 203 cited on behalf of the petitioners wherein the Supreme Court held, inter alia, that "the crucial date of calculating the conversion charges has to be the date of receipt of application for conversion of land use". According to him, the said decision cannot be applied in the present case as the said judgment was rendered on concession as observed in the said case. 17. Before examining the aforesaid questions, it will be appropriate for us to notice the historical preview of the agrarian reform, statement and objects of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1948 and the legal position of certain general principles relating to the challenge of a statute and the parameters of the Courts' jurisdiction to examine materials for arriving at the legislative intent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paragraphs of the preamble of the Act, which is set out hereunder :- "AND WHEREAS on account of the neglect of a landholder or disputes between a landholder and his tenants, the cultivation of his estate has seriously suffered, or for the purpose of improving the economic and social conditions of peasants or ensuring the full and efficient use of land for agriculture, it is expedient to assume management of estates held by landholders and to regulate and impose restrictions on the transfer of agricultural lands, dwelling houses, sites and lands appurtenant thereto belonging to or occupied by agriculturists, agricultural labourers and artisans in the Province of Bombay and to make provisions for certain other purposes hereinafter appearing ...." Section 43 as it originally stood in the Act prohibits transfer of land purchased by a protected tenant's right under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act except with previous sanction of the provincial Government, which read as under :- "43. Restriction on protected tenant's right of transfer - No land purchased by a protected tenant under section 32 shall be transferred by sale, gift, exchange, lease, mortgage or assignment without t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes not lay down any guidelines for the executives in the matter of determination of "amount" i.e. "premium" before granting sanction. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shashikant Mohanlal vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1970 (11) GLR 122, exhaustively discussed the objective vis-a-vis various provisions of the Act and laid down the following propositions :- "(a) The tiller of the soil should be brought into direct contact with the State and the intermediary landlord should be eliminated and with that end in view, sections from section to 32R and section 43 have been introduced by the Legislature; (b) As on 1.4.1957, every tenant shall be deemed to have purchased from his landlord, land free from all encumbrances, provided he was cultivating the same personally. (c) It must be remembered that the State is theoretically the owner of all land and all occupants hold under the State; (d) The tenant becomes the deemed purchased of the land at a ridiculously low price because it was intended that he should continue to personally cultivate. (e) If an occupant is not entitled to transfer his land without the permission of the State, the State can very well say that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or any interest, therein shall be partitioned without the previous sanction of the Collector." 26. The question is whether in view of such amendment, any substantial change is made to show that the legislatures have deviated from the basic philosophy or the main object of the Act i.e. agrarian reform ? 27. From Section 43, it will be evident that the right of tenants that they shall be deemed to be purchasers even continues after enactment of the amended Section 43. This Court has already stated that in normal course the State is theoretically the owner of all lands and all occupants hold under the State. (refer the case of Shashikant Mohanlal vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1970 (11) GLR 122). The occupant was earlier not entitled to transfer his land without the permission of the State and even after the amendment, such permission is required to be obtained. Therefore, there is no change of position. In the case of Shashikant Mohanlal vs. State of Gujarat, (supra), this Court noticed that as per earlier Section 43, there was a provision to grant permission on payment of such amount as may be determined by the Collector. The said Section stipulated for permission of transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. Sanjanwala vs. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1961 SC 4, the Supreme Court while upholding the provisions contains in Section 6(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as was operative in the State of Mahrashtra at the material time, as well as of a notification issued thereunder, empowering the Government to fix the maximum rent payable by the tenants on the ground that the material provisions of the Act including its preamble were intended to give relief to the tenants by fixing the maximum rent payable by them, the Supreme Court observed as under :- "(6) The present Act is undoubtedly a beneficent measure. It has enacted provisions for agrarian reform which the Legislature thought was overdue. ... (7) ... ... In our opinion, therefore, having regard to the legislative policy laid down by the Act in its preamble and in the other relevant sections ... ... it would not be possible to hold that the power delegated to the Provincial Government by section 6(2) suffers from the infirmity of excessive delegation. The fact that no minimum has been prescribed would not materially affect this position." (8) ... ... If section 6(2) is valid then the exercise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egatee. In other words, then it cannot be held that such a power is unbridled or uncanalized. The exercise of power of such delegate is controlled through such policy. .. .. …." 31. Almost similar provision is contained in Section 73B of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. As per said Section 73B of the Bombay Land Revenue Code when any land covered by the Tenancy Act is to be converted from new tenure to old tenure i.e. from agriculture to non-agriculture, the owner thereof is to seek previous sanction of the State Government, which shall not be given except on payment to the State Government of such sum as the State Government may, by general or special order, determine. Said Section 73B while fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Kanaiyalal D Sopariwala vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2009 (1) GLH 185, this Court observed as under :- "10. … … The premium that is due to the Government is charged in lieu of waiving the State's interest in a particular new tenure land and permitting the occupant to put it to nonrestricted use i.e. old tenure. Such restrictions are also placed to ensure that lands acquired under some beneficial legislation or un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been put by asking to pay premium in case of transfer of nature of the land from new tenure to old tenure i.e. from agriculture to non-agriculture or for transfer of land to others if made for non-agricultural purpose, the said Act being regulatory in nature as by reasons thereof the right of the owner of the property to use and develop stands restricted, which requires strict construction. An owner of the land is entitled to use or develop the same for any purpose unless there exists certain regulations in a statute or statutory Rules. The regulations contained in such statute must be interpreted in such a manner so as to least interfere with the right to property of the owner of such land. In the present case, we find that the restriction and regulated power has been made to ensure that the lands which were acquired under the beneficial legislation in favour of one or under some welfare scheme are not transferred for profit, thereby defeating the very purpose of the grant. The premium is thus charged to restrict the transfer from agricultural land to non-agricultural land or for earning profit, thereby defeating the very purpose and object of Tenancy Act, which was enacted for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... griculture to non-agriculture in such area after 15 years has been fixed at 80%. Therefore, if the agricultural land is in rural area, and is sought to be transferred for non-agriculture purpose (old tenure), in that case, no premium has been fixed. On the other hand, if the agricultural land is transferred from agriculture to non-agriculture in the urban area after 15 years, then only premium of 50% is to be paid and if a person does not want to retain such land, but want to sell for non-agricultural purpose to other in any part of the State, then he is to pay the premium at 80% . Similarly, a separate standard has been made for the land holding on new and indivisible conditions under Kachchh Inam Abolition, whereunder for transfer from agriculture to non-agriculture (old tenure) in rural area while no premium is required to be paid, in the urban area for such transfer after 15 years, a person is required to paid 20 times amounts of assessment and if in such Kachchh area, if alienates the land for non-agriculture purpose in nay of the such area i.e. urban or rural, after 15 years is liable to pay only 50%. 39. Previously there was no time limit for deciding the application for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consider such objections in view of the draft Jantry. Thereafter, ultimately, the final Jantry was prepared and the same was made applicable since 1.4.2008. It is required to be clarified that the Jantry (ASR-2006) is prepared subject to further modification in future. It is submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the Jantry introduced on 1.4.2008 and therefore, I refrain myself for commenting further on that issue. However, it is submitted that the authority has taken due care before preparing new Jantry." The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the petitioners. The Court was informed by the learned Advocate General that they are going to change the Jantry with effect from 1.4.2011. In this background also, no interference is called for against the jantri. 41. In some of the cases, the parties have raised the question of crucial date for determination of the premium amount. According to them, it should be the date of application on which they applied for permission for transfer. Before the learned Single Judge, when the aforesaid matter was raised in Special Civil Application No. 22164 of 2006 and other allied matters, the learned Single Judge while referring the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts takes much time as thorough inquiry is to be made and then to give finding. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that once they file the application, the Collector is bound to give permission. In appropriate case, it can be refused. The petitioners have no right to transfer the land except in accordance with Section 43 to claim transfer of land from agriculture to nonagriculture or to alienate the land. If without permission under Section 43, the land could not have been sold, the agreement if any reached by the petitioners with any other person for transfer of land, such agreement is invalid, having executed in violation of Section 43 of the Act and hence to be ignored. 43. Whenever the transfer will be made from agriculture to non-agriculture or permission will be granted to transfer the land to others, such permission can be granted only from the prospective date the Collector having not empowered to grant permission to transfer from a retrospective date. If such permission can be granted to transfer the land from prospective date and thereafter transfer will be made from prospective date, the petitioners cannot claim to ascertain the valuation from a retrospective date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
