The petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.5.1998 passed by Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, whereby the Additional Chief Secretary has rejected the Revision Application confirming the order passed by the Collector of Sabarkantha dated 29.3.1997 as also the order passed by the Deputy Collector for levying of special cess on the basis of non-agricultural assessment in respect of lands in question.
As per the case of the petitioners, the petitioners have constructed residential houses described by them as farm house in land survey No. 1030/B admeasuring 6 acres situated in the sim of village Dhansura, Tal. Modasa, District, Sabarkantha. As could be found from the record of the case, initially, the Deputy Collector had given permission for non-agriculture use of the lands. After expiry of 30 years, because of fixation of special assessment in respect of non-agricultural use, the Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings by letter dated 15.2.1978 for the purpose of recovery of amount for non-agricultural use. It was the case of the petitioners that under the Government circular, use of the lands for farm house could not be subjected to assessment. However, the Deputy Collector directed that since the petitioners had put the lands in question for use of their residence by constructing houses thereon, the petitioners were liable to pay the necessary amount for non-agricultural assessment for land in question. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners moved an appeal before the Collector. The Collector dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by Deputy Collector by holding that the circular was of no help to the petitioners as the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code provide recovery of charges for use of the land for non-agricultural purpose and the petitioners have put the land in question for non-agricultural use and the petitioners are liable to pay the necessary charges on the basis of the non-agricultural assessment.
The petitioners further carried the matter before the State Government by filing Revision Application and the Revisional Authority has found that the lands in question were permitted to be used for non-agricultural purpose initially and thereafter because of the change in the Rules for non-agricultural assessment, the Taluka Development Officer had initiated proceedings for recovery of charges for such assessment. The Revisional Authority also recorded that when the lands in question were put for non-agricultural use by the petitioners for their residential purpose under the provision of Bombay Land Revenue Code, the lands were rightly put to non-agricultural assessment and the circular issued by the State Government would not be of any help to the petitioners as the entire lands held by the petitioners were being used for non-agricultural purpose, i.e. for residential use of the petitioners. The Revisional Authority, thus concurred with the view taken by the authorities below and rejected the Revision filed by the petitioners. Against this order, the petitioners have filed this Special Civil Application.
Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. R.N. Shah has submitted that making of farm house on agricultural land is permissible and by virtue of the Government circular, the petitioners were not required to pay for making farm house. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the farm house on the agricultural land is only for the purpose of looking after the agricultural land and therefore, as per the Government Circular, the lands in question could not be subjected to non-agricultural assessment. Learned advocate Shri Shah has pointed out that since the permission for non-agricultural use was granted to the petitioners on 30.1.1931, the petitioners have put up the farm house and there was no non-agricultural use of the land and therefore, the authorities below had committed grave error in coming to the conclusion that the land in question was put to non-agricultural use. Mr. Shah submitted that the petitioners being agriculturists were well within their rights to construct the farm house on the agricultural land. He therefore, submits that the orders passed by the authorities below are required to be quashed and set aside by this Court by exercising powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Against the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.P. Shri Dave appearing on behalf of respondents has submitted that it is not disputed that the land in question was non-agricultural land and the permission was granted and after the period of 30 years, because of the change in assessment, the petitioners were required to pay the charges for non-agricultural use. He further submitted that originally, the permission was granted for non-agricultural use in 1931. In fact, the petitioners have constructed the houses for residential purpose on the land in question, which would be sufficient enough to come to the conclusion that on the basis of the original permission for non-agricultural use, the petitioners have started use of the lands in question for residential purpose and therefore, because of the change in assessment of the non-agricultural use, the petitioners are required to pay the charges for such non-agricultural assessment. He submitted that the authorities below have recorded the findings of fact that all the petitioners have put up their houses for residential purpose and they have been actually residing in their houses on the lands in question. He therefore, submitted that since the land is put for non-agricultural use, the petitioners cannot escape from the liability of paying the necessary charges for non-agricultural assessment.
Having heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, I find that there was permission granted by the competent authority in the year 1931 for non-agricultural use. After 30 years, because of change in special assessment, the T.D.O. had initiated proceedings for recovery of necessary charges for non-agricultural assessment. I also find from the record of the authorities below that the findings of fact is recorded that the petitioners have constructed their houses on the lands in question and used the land for residential purpose, though the petitioners may claim that use of the land is for non-residential purpose and they have put up the farm house to facilitate the agricultural activities.
Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for by this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India as the authorities below have not committed any error of law. The petitioners were liable to make payment of necessary charges for non-agricultural assessment done by the Taluka Development Officer.
In view of the above, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
(C.L.
SONI, J.) FH.
Top