Bombay High Court Allows Modification of Condition in Land Transfer Permission to Tribal Person — Valuation to Be Based on Ready Reckoner at Date of Application. Section 36-A of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 requires market value to be determined as on date of application for prior permission, not as on date of order.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, who are non-tribal individuals, sought to purchase agricultural land from Respondent No. 3, a tribal person. In 2010, an agreement was reached, and on 7 July 2012, they applied for prior permission under Section 36-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLR Code) before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The application was processed, and the Circle Officer submitted a report on 11 December 2012 recommending grant of permission. However, the matter remained pending for several years. On 25 March 2021, Respondent No. 2 (State of Maharashtra) issued an order granting permission subject to condition no. 1, which required the petitioners to pay the market value of the land as per the ready reckoner of the year 2022-2023. The petitioners challenged this condition, arguing that the valuation should be based on the ready reckoner as on the date of their application (7 July 2012). Subsequently, on 5 July 2022, Respondent No. 1 (Additional Collector) passed a consequential order reiterating the same condition. The petitioners filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking modification of condition no. 1 in both orders. The court considered the legal issue of the appropriate date for determining market value under Section 36-A of the MLR Code. The petitioners contended that the delay in processing the application was not their fault and that they should not be penalized by a higher valuation. The respondents argued that the valuation should be as per the current ready reckoner. The court analyzed the purpose of Section 36-A, which is to protect tribal land from exploitation, and noted that the provision requires the competent authority to determine the market value. The court held that the valuation must be based on the ready reckoner existing on the date of the application for permission, as the delay in disposal cannot be attributed to the applicants. Accordingly, the court allowed the petition, set aside condition no. 1 in both impugned orders, and directed that the market value be determined as per the ready reckoner of 2012-2013. The court also directed the petitioners to pay the amount within four weeks and the respondents to complete the formalities within two weeks thereafter.

Headnote

A) Land Law - Transfer of Tribal Land - Section 36-A Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Valuation Date - The issue was whether the market value of land proposed to be transferred by a tribal person should be determined as per the ready reckoner on the date of the application for prior permission or on the date of the order granting permission. The Court held that the valuation must be as per the ready reckoner existing on the date of the application, as the delay in processing the application cannot be attributed to the applicants. The condition in the impugned orders directing valuation as per the ready reckoner of 2022-2023 was set aside and substituted with valuation as per the ready reckoner of 2012-2013. (Paras 1-14)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the market value of the subject land for the purpose of granting prior permission under Section 36-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 should be determined as per the ready reckoner existing on the date of the application or on the date of the order granting permission

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. Condition no.1 in the order dated 25 March 2021 and the consequential order dated 5 July 2022 is set aside and substituted with a direction that the market value of the subject land shall be determined as per the ready reckoner existing as on the date of the application i.e. 7 July 2012. The petitioners shall pay the amount within four weeks from today. Upon payment, the respondents shall complete the formalities within two weeks thereafter. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

Law Points

  • Market value for land transfer from tribal person must be determined as per ready reckoner on date of application for prior permission under Section 36-A of MLR Code
  • 1966
  • not on date of order
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (04) 50

WRIT PETITION NO.12350 OF 2022

2023-04-26

R.D. Dhanuka, Gauri Godse

2023:BHC-AS:13815-DB

Mr.Vivek V. Salunkhe for the Petitioners, Ms.M.S. Bane, AGP for the State – Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr.Pratap Patil for the Respondent No.3

Tadavi Yasin Supdu, Dilip Trimbakrao Channawar, Shashikala Ramesh Kolate

The Additional Collector, Raigad; The State of Maharashtra; Jaywant Mahadu Shid

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging condition in order granting prior permission for transfer of tribal land, seeking modification of valuation date

Remedy Sought

Modification of condition no.1 in orders dated 25 March 2021 and 5 July 2022 to direct valuation as per ready reckoner on date of application (7 July 2012)

Filing Reason

The petitioners were aggrieved by condition no.1 in the impugned orders which required payment of market value as per ready reckoner of 2022-2023 instead of 2012-2013

Previous Decisions

Order dated 25 March 2021 by Respondent No.2 granting permission subject to condition no.1; consequential order dated 5 July 2022 by Respondent No.1 reiterating the condition

Issues

Whether the market value for transfer of tribal land under Section 36-A of MLR Code should be determined as per ready reckoner on date of application or date of order

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the delay in processing the application was not attributable to them and they should not be penalized by higher valuation; valuation should be as on date of application (7 July 2012) Respondents argued that the valuation should be as per the current ready reckoner (2022-2023) as per the impugned orders

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 36-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, the market value of land proposed to be transferred by a tribal person must be determined as per the ready reckoner existing on the date of the application for prior permission, not on the date of the order granting permission, as the delay in processing the application cannot be attributed to the applicants.

Judgment Excerpts

The Petitioners thus seek a modification of condition no.1 in both the Orders by directing to consider the valuation of the subject land as per the ready reckoner as on the date of the Application dated 7th July 2012. The valuation must be as per the ready reckoner existing on the date of the application for permission, as the delay in processing the application cannot be attributed to the applicants.

Procedural History

On 7 July 2012, petitioners applied for prior permission under Section 36-A of MLR Code. On 11 December 2012, Circle Officer recommended grant. On 25 March 2021, Respondent No.2 granted permission with condition no.1 requiring valuation as per ready reckoner 2022-2023. On 5 July 2022, Respondent No.1 passed consequential order. Petitioners filed writ petition on 26 April 2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: 36-A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Modification of Condition in Land Transfer Permission to Tribal Person — Valuation to Be Based on Ready Reckoner at Date of Application. Section 36-A of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 requires market value to be determ...
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Allows Petition Challenging Preventive Detention Order for Lack of Material on Public Order Disturbance. The court held that mere registration of FIRs does not justify detention as a 'dangerous person' under Section 2(c) of the Guj...