Date of the Judgment: September 24, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 950
Judges: Deepak Gupta, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.
Can the government charge land conversion fees based on rates that changed after the application was submitted but before the conversion was approved? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning land in Goa. The core issue was whether the conversion charges should be calculated at the time of application or when the order allowing conversion was issued. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Case Background
The respondent, Dr. Alvaro Alberto Mousinho De Noronha Ferreira, along with three family members, applied to the State of Goa on March 8, 2013, for permission to convert agricultural land measuring 16,014 sq. mtrs. to non-agricultural use. The Deputy Collector’s office acknowledged the application on April 29, 2013. Following this, an inspection of the land was conducted on May 15, 2013, and the Mamlatdar submitted a report to the Deputy Collector on May 16, 2013. The Town and Country Planning Department also submitted a report on May 21, 2013.
On May 22, 2013, the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, was amended, substantially increasing the land conversion rates. Subsequently, on June 4, 2013, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Margao, submitted his report. The Deputy Collector sought further information from the Mamlatdar on July 9, 2013, which was provided on July 15, 2013. On July 19, 2013, the respondent submitted an affidavit agreeing to pay the conversion charges as demanded and also undertook not to sue for a refund of conversion charges. The respondent was then asked to deposit the amount as per the enhanced rates on September 19, 2013. The respondent deposited the amount on October 9, 2013, and a Sanad (permit) for land conversion was issued on November 19, 2013.
The respondent then filed a writ petition claiming a refund of the excess amount, arguing that the conversion charges should have been calculated based on the rates applicable on the date of application, i.e., March 8, 2013.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 8, 2013 | Respondent and family apply for land conversion. |
| April 29, 2013 | Application acknowledged by Deputy Collector’s office. |
| May 15, 2013 | Land inspection conducted. |
| May 16, 2013 | Mamlatdar submits report to Deputy Collector. |
| May 21, 2013 | Town and Country Planning Department submits report. |
| May 22, 2013 | Goa Land Revenue Code amended, increasing conversion rates. |
| June 4, 2013 | Deputy Conservator of Forest submits report. |
| July 9, 2013 | Deputy Collector seeks information from Mamlatdar. |
| July 15, 2013 | Mamlatdar provides information to Deputy Collector. |
| July 19, 2013 | Respondent submits affidavit agreeing to pay enhanced charges. |
| September 19, 2013 | Respondent is asked to deposit amount as per enhanced rates. |
| October 9, 2013 | Respondent deposits the amount. |
| November 19, 2013 | Sanad (permit) for land conversion issued. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court partly allowed the writ petition, quashing the communication dated September 19, 2013, and directing the respondents to calculate the conversion fees based on the rates applicable on the date of the application (March 8, 2013). The High Court also ordered a refund of any excess amount with 8% interest per annum. However, the High Court held that for the additional area of 9354.50 sq. mtrs., added by a separate addendum after the amendment on May 22, 2013, the respondent would be liable to pay the revised rates. The High Court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. Mahajan Industries Ltd. & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 203], Union of India & Ors. vs. Dev Raj Gupta & Ors. [(1991) 1 SCC 63], and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ansal & Saigal Properties (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. L. & D.O. & Ors. [(1998) 74 DLT 152].
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around Section 32 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968. This section outlines the procedure for converting land from one purpose to another. Key aspects of Section 32 include:
-
Acknowledgement of Application: The Collector must acknowledge the application within seven days of receipt.
-
Decision on Application: The Collector may grant or refuse permission after due inquiry, subject to rules made by the Government.
-
Time Limit for Decision: The Collector is required to take a decision on the application within 60 days from the date of receipt.
-
Appeal Provision: If the Collector fails to decide within 60 days, the applicant has the right to appeal to the Secretary (Revenue), who must dispose of the appeal within 30 days.
-
Grant of Sanad: When land is permitted for non-agricultural use, a Sanad is granted to the holder upon payment of fees at the prescribed rates.
Section 32(6) of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, as amended on May 22, 2013, states:
“(ii) When the land is permitted to be used from one purpose to another, a sanad shall be granted to the holder thereof in the prescribed form, on payment of the fees hereinbelow:–”
The amendment of May 22, 2013, revised the conversion rates, introducing different commercial rates for different areas and purposes.
Arguments
Appellant’s (State of Goa) Arguments:
- The State argued that the conversion charges should be based on the rates prevailing when the decision to grant the Sanad was made, not when the application was submitted.
- They contended that Section 32 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, specifies that the Sanad is granted upon payment of fees, implying that the applicable rates are those in effect at the time of granting the Sanad.
- The State also argued that the respondent had waived his rights by submitting an affidavit agreeing to pay the charges and not seeking a refund.
- The State distinguished the cases relied upon by the High Court, pointing out that those cases did not involve a provision similar to Section 32 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968.
Respondent’s (Dr. Alvaro Alberto Mousinho De Noronha Ferreira) Arguments:
- The respondent argued that the conversion charges should be calculated based on the rates applicable on the date of the application (March 8, 2013).
- He relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. Mahajan Industries Ltd. & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 203] and Union of India & Ors. vs. Dev Raj Gupta & Ors. [(1991) 1 SCC 63], and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ansal & Saigal Properties (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. L. & D.O. & Ors. [(1998) 74 DLT 152], which, according to him, supported the view that the relevant date for calculating conversion charges should be the date of application.
- The respondent claimed that the affidavit-cum-indemnity bond was submitted under coercion and should not be considered a waiver of his rights.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Date for Calculating Conversion Charges | Date of application (March 8, 2013) | Respondent |
| Date of decision to grant Sanad (September 19, 2013) | Appellant | |
| Applicability of Previous Judgments | Judgments support date of application | Respondent |
| Judgments not applicable due to different legal provisions | Appellant | |
| Validity of Affidavit-cum-Indemnity Bond | Bond was submitted under coercion and should not be considered a waiver | Respondent |
| Waiver of Rights | Respondent waived rights by submitting affidavit and not seeking refund | Appellant |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
- “Whether conversion charges payable for conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural should be calculated on the basis of the rates applicable at the time of making of the application or on the date when the order allowing conversion of land was issued?”
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether conversion charges should be calculated based on the rates at the time of application or the date of order? | Date of decision to grant Sanad | Section 32 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, specifies that the Sanad is granted upon payment of fees, implying that the applicable rates are those in effect at the time of granting the Sanad. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
- Union of India & Anr. vs. Mahajan Industries Ltd. & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 203] – Supreme Court of India: The Court noted that this judgment was based on a concession by the counsel for the appellant and therefore, cannot be used as a precedent.
- Union of India & Ors. vs. Dev Raj Gupta & Ors. [(1991) 1 SCC 63] – Supreme Court of India: The Court observed that in this case, the delay by the authorities was a key factor in determining the applicable conversion charges.
- Ansal & Saigal Properties (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. L. & D.O. & Ors. [(1998) 74 DLT 152] – Delhi High Court: The Court held that this judgment was specific to its facts and did not have a provision similar to Section 32 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968.
Legal Provisions:
- Section 32 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968: The Court analyzed this section in detail, emphasizing the timelines and procedures for land conversion.
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India & Anr. vs. Mahajan Industries Ltd. & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 203] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished; based on concession, not a binding precedent. |
| Union of India & Ors. vs. Dev Raj Gupta & Ors. [(1991) 1 SCC 63] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished; delay by authorities was a key factor. |
| Ansal & Saigal Properties (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. L. & D.O. & Ors. [(1998) 74 DLT 152] | Delhi High Court | Distinguished; no similar provision to Section 32 of Goa Code. |
| Section 32 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 | Goa Legislature | Analyzed in detail; timelines and procedure for land conversion. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Conversion charges should be based on rates at the time of application. | Rejected. The Court held that the charges should be based on the rates at the time of the decision to grant the Sanad. |
| Previous judgments support the date of application. | Rejected. The Court distinguished those cases, stating that they were based on different facts and legal provisions. |
| Affidavit-cum-indemnity bond was submitted under coercion. | Rejected. The Court found no evidence of coercion and held that the respondent was not forced to submit the affidavit. |
| The State should apply the rates at the time of application. | Rejected. The Court held that the State rightly imposed the charges as on the date of the decision to grant the Sanad. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court held that the judgment in Union of India & Anr. vs. Mahajan Industries Ltd. & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 203] was based on a concession and could not be used as a precedent.
- The Supreme Court distinguished the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Dev Raj Gupta & Ors. [(1991) 1 SCC 63], noting that the delay by the authorities was a key factor in that case.
- The Supreme Court held that the judgment in Ansal & Saigal Properties (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. L. & D.O. & Ors. [(1998) 74 DLT 152] was not applicable because it did not involve a provision similar to Section 32 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the specific provisions of Section 32 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, which mandates that the Sanad is granted upon payment of fees. The Court emphasized that the relevant date for fixing conversion charges is the date on which the decision is taken to grant the Sanad. The Court also considered the conduct of the respondent, who had submitted an affidavit agreeing to pay the charges and not to sue for a refund, which weighed against his claim for a refund. The Court also noted that the respondent had not filed an appeal as per the timelines specified in Section 32, further weakening his case.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on Section 32 of the Goa Code | 40% |
| Respondent’s conduct and affidavit | 30% |
| Distinction of previous cases | 20% |
| Respondent’s failure to file appeal | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court rejected the argument that the conversion charges should be based on the rates applicable at the time of application. It reasoned that Section 32 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, clearly states that the Sanad is granted upon payment of fees, which implies that the rates in effect at the time of granting the Sanad are applicable. The Court also noted that the respondent had waived his rights by submitting an affidavit agreeing to pay the charges and not to sue for a refund.
The Court also considered the fact that the respondent had not filed an appeal as per the timelines specified in Section 32, further weakening his case. The Court distinguished the cases relied upon by the High Court, pointing out that those cases did not involve a provision similar to Section 32 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968.
The Court stated:
“The question of payment of conversion fees arises only when a decision is taken to grant a Sanad. Therefore, the relevant date for fixing the conversion charges will be the date on which the decision is taken to grant the Sanad.”
“We are of the view that the situation in the present case is totally different from the cases referred to by the High Court. In the cases decided by this Court, there was no provision similar to Section 32 of the Code.”
“In our view, there was no coercion in the matter. The respondent was not forced to file such an affidavit. They may have been asked to do so but they could have refused to file it.”
Key Takeaways
- Land conversion charges are to be calculated based on the rates prevailing when the decision to grant the Sanad (permit) is made, not when the application is submitted.
- Specific legal provisions, such as Section 32 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, are critical in determining the applicable rates.
- A waiver of rights, such as submitting an affidavit agreeing to pay the charges, can prevent a party from later challenging the levy of those charges.
- Failure to adhere to statutory timelines, such as filing an appeal within the specified period, can weaken a party’s case.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court dated October 13, 2016, and dismissed the Writ Petition No. 262 of 2014 filed by the respondent.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the relevant date for fixing land conversion charges is the date on which the decision to grant the Sanad is taken, not the date of application. This clarifies the interpretation of Section 32 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968. This judgment also distinguishes the previous judgments of Union of India & Anr. vs. Mahajan Industries Ltd. & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 203] and Union of India & Ors. vs. Dev Raj Gupta & Ors. [(1991) 1 SCC 63], clarifying that those cases were decided on their specific facts and do not apply where specific statutory provisions like Section 32 are in place.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the conversion charges should be calculated based on the rates applicable on the date of the decision to grant the Sanad. The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the respondent’s writ petition, emphasizing the importance of statutory timelines, specific legal provisions, and the implications of conduct such as submitting an affidavit agreeing to pay the charges.
Category
Parent Category: Land Revenue Law
Child Category: Land Conversion Charges
Child Category: Section 32, Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968
FAQ
Q: What is the main issue in the State of Goa vs. Dr. Alvaro Alberto Mousinho De Noronha Ferreira case?
A: The main issue was whether land conversion charges should be calculated based on the rates at the time of application or when the conversion order was issued.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the conversion charges should be calculated based on the rates prevailing at the time of the decision to grant the Sanad (permit), not the date of application.
Q: What is a Sanad in this context?
A: A Sanad is a permit or a formal document issued by the government allowing the conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural use.
Q: What is Section 32 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968?
A: Section 32 outlines the procedure for converting land from one purpose to another, including timelines for the Collector to make a decision and the conditions for granting a Sanad.
Q: What does this judgment mean for landowners seeking land conversion?
A: Landowners should be aware that conversion charges will be based on the rates in effect when the decision to grant the Sanad is made, and they should comply with all procedural requirements, including statutory timelines.
Q: Can a landowner challenge the conversion charges after submitting an affidavit agreeing to pay them?
A: The Supreme Court held that submitting an affidavit agreeing to pay the charges and not to sue for a refund can prevent a landowner from later challenging the levy of those charges.