http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: STATE OF GUJARAT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PATEL RAGHAV NATHA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/04/1969

BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BACHAWAT, R.S. HEGDE, K.S.

CITATION:  1969 AIR 1297            1970 SCR  (1) 335  1969 SCC  (2) 187  CITATOR INFO :  F          1970 SC1302  (6)  R          1971 SC 862  (10)  R          1983 SC1239  (12)

ACT: Bombay  Land Revenue Code, 1879, ss. 65 and  211-Collector’s order  granting permission to convert agricultural  land  to non-agricultural  use as building site-Commissioner  setting aside order a year later-Validity-Commissioner’s power to go into question of title-Duty to give reasons for decision.

HEADNOTE: The  respondent,  who was an occupant of  agricultural  land applied  to  the Collector, under s. 65 of the  Bombay  Land Revenue  Code, 1879, for permission to convert the  land  to non-agricultural use.  The Collector gave the permission  in July  1960  on  condition  that  the  land  shall  be   used exclusively   for  constructing  residential  houses.    The Municipal  Committee,  which had objected to  the  grant  of permission before the Collector, moved the Commissioner  for exercising  his  powers  under  s. 211  of  the  Code.   The Commissioner,  in October, 1961, passed an order  in  which, after  reciting the objections of the Municipality  and  the arguments  of counsel he boldly stated his  conclusion  that the land did not belong to the respondent and set aside  the Collector’s  order  without giving any  reasons.   The  Com- missioner’s  order  was  quashed by the High  Court  on  the ground  that the Commissioner had no authority to  pass  the order under s. 211 of the Code. In appeal to this Court, HELD : The Commissioner’s order was rightly quashed. (a)  Under  s.  65 of the Code, if the  Collector  does  not inform  an  applicant of his decision  on  the  application, within  a  period of 3 months, the  permission  applied  for shall  be deemed to have been granted Though no such  period is  prescribed by s. 211, reading the two sections  together it must be held that the Commissioner also must exercise his revisional   powers   within  a  reasonable  time   of   the Collector’s  order.  What is reasonable would depend on  the facts  of the case.  In the case when the permission is  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

building  purposes,  the Commissioner  should  exercise  his power within a few months of the Collector’s order, because, after the grant of the permission the occupant is likely  to spend  money on building operations within a few  months  of the date of permission.  Since the order of the Commissioner in  the present case was passed more than a year  after  the Collector’s order, the order should be set aside. [343 E-H] (b)  The order should also be quashed on the ground that the Commissioner had not given any reasons for his  conclusions. [343 H] (c)  The Commissioner also erred in going into the  question of  title,  because,  when  there  was  a  serious   dispute regarding  title, he should have referred the parties  to  a competent court and not decide it himself. [344 D]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE        JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals No.  723 of 1966. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment -and order  dated July  25,  26, 1964. of the Gujarat High  Court  in  Special Civil Application No. 31 of 1962. 336 R.   H.  Dhebar,  Urmila  Kapoor and S. P.  Nayar,  for  the appellant. Purshottam Trikamdas and I. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 1. N. S. Bindra and K. L. Hathi, for respondent No. 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed  against. the  judgment  of  the High Court  of  Gujarat  (Vakil,  J.) allowing  the  application  filed  by  Patel  Raghav  Natha, respondent  before  us and hereinafter referred  to  as  the petitioner,  and quashing the order dated October 12,  1961, passed   by   the  Commissioner,   Rajkot   Division.    The Commissioner  by this order had set aside the order  of  the Collector,  dated July 2, 1960, granting permission  to  the petitioner  to  use  some land in Survey No.  417  for  non- agricultural purposes. In  order to appreciate the contentions raised before us  it is  necessary to set out a few facts.  The petitioner was  a resident  of the State of Rajkot and at an auction  effected by  the State, he acquired on or about September  22,  1938, agricultural  land  bearing  survey No.  417  which  in  all measured  about  12  acres  and  12  ganthas.   After   some acquisitions  by the State out of this survey number he  was left  with 2 acres and 10 ganthas of agricultural land.   On October  20, 1958, the petitioner applied to  the  Collector for permission to convert this land to non-agricultural use, under  s.  65  of  the  Bombay  Land  Revenue  Code,   1879, hereinafter  referred  to as the Code.   This  petition  was first   rejected  by  the  Collector,  but  the   Divisional Commissioner  remanded  the  matter to  the  Collector.   On remand,  the  then  Collector of Rajkot,  after  holding  an enquiry,  granted  permission to the petitioner to  use  the land  for  non-agricultural use by his order dated  July  2, 1960.   Pursuant  to this order a sanad was  issued  by  the Collector  to the petitioner on July 27, 1960.   It  appears that the sanad was amended on November 3, 1960 and  December 1,  1960.   The  sanad  was  in form  MI  and  a  number  of conditions  were appended to the sanad.  Condition 6 of  the main sanad provided that "save as herein provided, the grant shall  be subject to the provisions of the said  code."  The special conditions originally included a condition that  the land shall be used exclusively for constructing  residential

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

houses  (condition  5)  but this condition  was  altered  in November 1960. It  appears that the Municipal Committee of Rajkot  had  ob- jected to the grant of permission before the Collector  when a  sketch  of the land was sent to  the  Municipality.   The objections  as they appear from the order of  the  Collector granting the sanad were directed against the accuracy of the sketch, showing the                             337 northern  and tile western comers of the Ramkrishna  Ashram, and  regarding the boundaries and situation of the roads  in survey Nos. 417 and 418.  The Collector had overruled  these objections. The  Municipal  Committee  approached  the  Commissioner  to exercise powers under s. 211 of the Code.  The  Commissioner noted the objections of the Municipality and after  reciting the objections and the arguments of the learned counsel  for the petitioner and after inspecting the site, observed :               "From  this inspection the contentions of  the               Municipality  as  to  the  existence  of   the               various  roads  as well as the nature  of  the               Kharaba land has been proved beyond doubt.               In light of the above arguments as well as the               site inspection and the papers of the case,  I               set aside the order of the Collector  granting               N.A. Permission.  I consider, on weighing  all               evidence  cited above, that the land does  not               belong to Shri Raghav Natha."               It is this order which has been quashed by the               High Court.               The  following grounds were urged  before  the               learned Judge               (1)   The Commissioner or the State Government               had no authority under Section 211 of the Code               to revise the order of the Collector so as  to               affect the agreement or sanad granted to him.               (2)   The   Commissioner’s  order  is  not   a               speaking order as no reasons are given by  him               for  setting aside the Collector’s order  and,               therefore, it should be quashed.               (3)   The  question of title to the  land  was               not in controversy at all before the Collector               and,  therefore,  it  was  not  open  to   the               Commissioner  to  permit the  Municipality  to               agitate  that question and the Commission  had               no jurisdiction to decide that question.               (4)   In   case  the  above  points  are   not               accepted, the order of the Commissioner is bad               even  on merits as the Commissioner had  erred               in law in allowing the question to be agitated               before him which were not agitated before  the               Collector  and which  involved  considerations               which  were completely foreign to those  which               were actually before the Collector. While dealing with ground No. 1 the learned Judge held  that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass an order  which would  nullify the sanad, and that the sanad was binding  on both the parties till it was set aside in due course of law. On the second 338 ground he held that there was some force in the  submission. But he observed :               "But at the same time if I had to decide  this               case on this contention raised, I may not have               interfered  only  on  this  ground,  with  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

             decision of the Commissioner". On  the  third  ground he found that it was  true  that  the question  of title was agitated by the  Municipal  Committee for  the first time before the Commissioner, though  it  was primarily for the petitioner to show that he was an occupant within  the  meaning  of s. 65 of the Code.   But  then  the learned  Judge decided not to enter into the merits  of  the case  as  he  had  come to the  clear  conclusion  that  the Commissioner had no authority to pass the order that he  did under s. 211 of the Code. The  learned counsel for the State of Gujarat,  Mr.  Dhebar, challenges   the  decision  of  the  High  Court  that   the Commissioner  had  no jurisdiction to pass the  order  dated October  12, 1961.  The relevant provisions of the Code  and the Land Revenue Rules, 1921, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, are as follows "The Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879               48.   (1)  The  land revenue leviable  on  any               land under the provisions of this Act shall be               assessed,  or  shall be deemed  to  have  been               assessed,  as the case may be, with  reference               to the use of the land-               (a)   for the purpose of agriculture,               (b)   for the purpose of building, and               (c)   for a purpose other than agriculture  or               building.               (2)   Where  land  assessed for  use  for  any               purpose  is  used for any other  purpose,  the               assessment fixed under the provisions of  this               Act upon such land shall, notwithstanding that               the  term for which such assessment  may  have               been  fixed has not expired, be liable  to  be               altered and fixed at a different rate by  such               authority  and  subject to such rules  as  the               State Government may prescribe in this behalf.               (3)   Where  land held free of  assessment  on               condition of    being used for any purpose  is               used at any time for any  other  purpose,   it               shall be liable to assessment.               (4)   The  Collector or a survey officer  may,               subject to any rules made in this behalf under               section  214,  prohibit the  use  for  certain               purposes of any unalienated               339               land  liable to the payment of  land  revenue,               and may summarily evict any holder who uses or               attempts to use the  same    for   any    such               prohibited purpose.               65.   An occupant of land assessed or held for               the  purpose               of  agriculture  is entitled by  himself,  his               servants,  tenants,  agents,  or  other  legal               representatives,   to  erect   farm-buildings,               construct  wells or tanks, or make  any  other               improvements    thereon   for    the    better               cultivation   of   the  land,  or   its   more               convenient use for the purpose aforesaid.               But, if any occupant wishes to use his holding               or any part thereof for any other purpose  the               Collector’s  permission  shall  in  the  first               place be applied for by the occupant.               The Collector, on receipt of such application,               (a)   shall  send to the applicant  a  written               acknowledgment of its receipt, and               (b)   may, after due inquiry, either grant  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

             refuse the permission applied for :               Provided  that, where the Collector  fails  to               inform  the applicant of his decision  on  the               application  within a period of three  months,               the permission applied for shall be deemed  to               have  been granted; such period shall, if  the               Collector sends a written acknowledgment with-               in seven days from the date of receipt of  the               application, be reckoned from the date of  the               acknowledgment, but in any other case it shall               be  reckoned from the date of receipt  of  the               application.               Unless  the  Collector  shall  in   particular               instances    otherwise   direct,    no    such               application  shall be recognized except it  be               made by the occupant.               When  any  such land is thus permitted  to  be               used   for   any  purpose   unconnected   with               agriculture   it  shall  be  lawful  for   the               Collector, subject to the general order of the               State Government, to require the payment of  a               fine  in addition to any new assessment  which               may  be  leviable  under  the  provisions   of               section 48.               66.   If any such land be so used without  the               permission   of  the  Collector  being   first               obtained,  or before the expiry of the  period               prescribed by section 65, the occupant and any               tenant,  or  other  person  holding  under  or               through  him, shall be liable to be  summarily               evicted by the Collector from the land so used               and from the entire               340               field or survey number of which it may form  a               part, and the occupant shall also be liable to               pay,  in addition to the new assessment  which               may  be  leviable  under  the  provisions   of               section  48  for the period during  which  the               said  land has been so used, such fine as  the               Collector  may, subject to the general  orders               of the Provincial Government, direct.               Any tenant of any occupant or any other person               holding  under  or through  an  occupant,  who               shall  without the occupant’s consent use  any               such  land for any such purpose,  and  thereby               render  the  said  occupant  liaable  to   the               penalties  aforesaid, shall be responsible  to               the said occupant in damages.               67.   Nothing   in  the  last  two   preceding               sections  shall  prevent the granting  of  the               permission   aforesaid   on  such   terms   or               conditions   as  may  be  prescribed  by   the               Collector, subject to any rules -Made in  this               behalf by the Provincial Government."               "Land Revenue Rules, 1921               87.   (a)    Revision   of    non-agricultural               assessment-               (b)   When  land is used for  non-agricultural               purposes  is assessed under the provisions  of               rules  81 to 85, a sanad shall be  granted  in               the  Form M if the land is used  for  building               purposes,  in  Form  NI if the  land  is  used               temporarily   for  N-A  purposes  other   than               building in Form N in all other cases.               Provided  that  if  the land to  be  used  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

             building  purposes  is  situated  within   the               limits of a municipal corporation  constituted               under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act  or               the  Bombay Provincial  Municipal  Corporation               Act,  1949 the Sanad shall be granted in  Form               M-1;..........               The  relevant  extracts  from  the   agreement               (sanad) are given below :               Whereas  application  has  been  made  to  the               Collector  (hereinafter  referred to  as  ’the               Collector’ which expression shall include  any               officer  whom the Collector shall  appoint  to               exercise  and  perform his powers  and  duties               under this grant) under section 65 of the Bom-               bay   Land  Revenue  Code  1879   (hereinafter               referred   to   as  ’the  said   Code’   which               expression  shall where the context so  admits               include  the rules and orders  thereunder)  by               inhabitant  of  Madhya  Saurashtra  being  the               registered  occupant of survey No. 417 in  the               village of                             341 in  the Taluka (hereinafter referred to as  ’the  applicant’ which  expression shall where the context so admits  include his  heirs,  executors,  administrators  and  assigns)   for permission  to  use for building purposes the plot  of  land (hereinafter  referred to as the ’said plot’), described  in the first schedule hereto and indicated by the letters...... on the site plan annexed hereto, forming part of survey  No. 417  and measuring acres 2 gunthas 17, be the same a  little more or less. When  used  under  rule 51 for  land  already  occupied  for agricultural  purposes  within certain surveyed  cities  the period for which the assessment is leviable will be  ordered to  coincide with the expiry of 99 years’ period running  in that city. Now  this is to certify that permission to use for  building purposes,  the  said plot is hereby granted subject  to  the provisions   of  the  said  code,  and  on   the   following conditions, namely :- (1) Assessment...... (6)  Code  provisions  applicable ’:-Save except  as  herein provided,  the grant shall be subject to the  provisions  of this code In witness whereof the Collector of has set his hand and the seal of his office on behalf of the     Governor of  Bombay, and the applicant has also here-unto set his hand, this  day the of          19 .      Signature of Applicant       Signature and designations                                   of witnesses      Signature of Collector      Signature and designations                                   of witnesses We  declare  that  who has signed this  notice  is,  to  our personal knowledge, the person he represents himself to  be, and  that  he  has affixed his  signature  hereunto  in  our presence." It  will be noticed that application is made under s. 65  of the  Code  and it is under s. 65 that the  Collector  either grants  or refuses the permission applied for.  It  will  be further  noticed that if the Collector fails to  inform  the applicant of his decision on the application within a period of  three months the permission applied for shall be  deemed to  have been granted, but if the Collector sends a  written acknowledgment within seven days from the date of receipt of the  application  then the three months period  is  reckoned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

from  the  date of acknowledgment, and in other  cases  this period is reckoned from the date of receipt of the supCI/69-8 342 application.  The Collector having given permission under s. 65  he  can prescribe conditions under s. 67  of  the  Code. Under  s.  48(2) where the land assessed for  use,  say  for agricultural purposes, is used for industrial purposes,  the assessment is liable to be altered and fixed at a  different rate  by  such authority and subject to such  rules  as  the State  Government may prescribe in this behalf.   The  rates for non-agricultural assessment are fixed under rr. 81,  82, 82A, 82AA, 84 and 85 of the Rules.  Rule 87(b) provides that where land is assessed under the provisions of rr. 81 to 85, a sanad shall be granted.  Under the proviso to r.     87 (b) it is obligatory for the sanad to be granted in form MI. Relying  on  Shri Mithoo Shahani v. Union  of  India(1)  the learned  counsel  contends  -that  there  is  a  distinction between  an  order granting permission under s. 65  and  the agreement  contained in the sanad which is issued under,  r. 87  (b).   He  urges  that even if  the  sanad  may  not  be revisable  under  s.  211 of the Code,  the  order  granting permission  under s. 65 is revisable under s. 21 1,  and  if this order is revised the sanad falls along with the order. We  need not give our views on this alleged distinction  for two  reasons; first, that this point was not debated  before the  High  Court  in this case or in  earlier  cases**,  and -secondly,  because we have come to the conclusion that  the order of the Commissioner must be quashed on other grounds. Section 211 reads thus               "211.   The State Government and  any  revenue               officer, not inferior in rank to an  Assistant               or  Deputy  Collector or a  Superintendent  of               Survey,  in their respective departments,  may               call for and examine the record of any inquiry               or the proceedings of any subordinate  revenue               officer, for the purpose of satisfying  itself               or  himself,  as the case may be,  as  to  the               legality or property of any decision or  order               passed,  and  as  to  the  regularity  of  the               proceedings of such officer.               The following officers may in the same  manner               call  for and examine the proceedings  of  any               officer subordinate (1)  [1964] 7 S.C.R. 103               (1)   The Government of the Province of Bombay               v.  Hormusji  Manekji--(1940)  Letters  Patent               Appeal  No. 40 of 1938, decided on  August  8,               1940.               (2)   The  Government of Bombay  v.  Mathurdas               Laljibhai Gandhi-44 B.L.R. 405.               (3)   The   State  of  Bombay  v.   Chhaganlal               Gangaram Lavar-56 B.L.R. 1084.               (4)   Government   of  Bombay   v.   Ahmedabad               sarangpur mills Co.-A.I.R. 1944 Bom. 244.               (5)   Secretary  of State v.  Anant  Nulkar-36               B.L.R. 242 (P.C.)               (6)   Province of Bombay v. Hormusji  Manekji-               50 B.L.R. 524 (P.C.).                             343 to  them  in  any matter in which neither  a  formal  nor  a summary  inquiry has been held, namely,.... a Mam-latdar,  a Mahalkari,  an  Assistant Superintendent of  Survey  and  an Assistant Settlement Officer. If in any case it shall appear to the State Government or to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

such  officer  aforesaid  that  any  decision  or  order  or proceedings  so called for should be modified,  annulled  or reversed,  it or he may pass such order thereon as it or  he deems fit; Provided  that  an Assistant or Deputy Collector  shall  not himself  pass  such order in any matter in  which  a  formal inquiry has been held, but shall submit the record with  his opinion to the Collector, who shall pass such order  thereon as he may deem fit." The  question arises whether the Commissioner can revise  an order  made under s. 65 at any time.  It is true that  there is  no period of limitation prescribed under s. 211, but  it seems  to  us  plain that this power must  be  exercised  in reasonable  time and the length of the reasonable time  must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised. It seems to us that s. 65 itself indicates the length of the reasonable  time  within  which the  Commissioner  must  act under,  s.  21 1. Under s. 65 of the Code if  the  Collector does  not  inform  the  applicant of  his  decision  on  the application  within a period of three months the  permission applied  for  shall be deemed to have  been  granted.   This section  shows that a period of three months  is  considered ample for the Collector to make up his mind and beyond  that the  legislature  thinks that the matter is so  urgent  that permission  shall be deemed to have been  granted.   Reading ss. 211 and 65 together it seems to us that the Commissioner must  exercise his revisional powers within a few months  of the order of the Collector.  This is reasonable time because after the grant of the permission for building purposes  the occupant  is  likely  to spend money  on  starting  building operations at least within a few months from the date of the permission.   In  this case the Commissioner set  aside  the order of the ’Collector on October 12, 1961, i.e. more  than a  year after the order, and it seems to us that this  order was passed too late. We  are  also of the opinion that the order of  the  Commis- sioner should be quashed on the ground that he did not  give any reasons for his conclusions.  We have already  extracted the  passage  above  which shows  that  after  reciting  the various contentions he badly stated his conclusions  without disclosing 344 his  reasons.   In a matter of this  kind  the  Commissioner should  indicate his reasons, however, briefly, so  that  an aggrieved party may carry the matter further if so advised. We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner should  not have  gone into the question of title.  It seems to us  that when  the  title  of an occupant is disputed  by  any  party before the Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute  is serious  the  appropriate course for the  Collector  or  the Commissioner  would be to refer the parties to  a  competent court  and  not  to decide the  question  of  title  himself against the occupant. In  the result the appeal is dismissed with  costs.   V.P.S. Appeal dismissed. 345