KALIDAS UMEDRAM AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 13-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

KALIDAS UMEDRAM AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
DECEMBJ;:R 13, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
Land Laws: 
Bombaj Land Revenue Code : Section 65 proviso-Grant of land for 
agricultural purpose,--l,and not to be used for other purposes without written C 
pe1mission-A/lottee sold part of land for building purposes-Application 
filed for pennission to use land for non-agiicultura/ purpose-However, no 
order on this application passed-Entire allotment of land cancelled-Held : 
deemed pem1ission meant only for agricultural or non-agricultural pur-
posi>--Not for industrial or building purposes-Po/icy behind grallt was to 
augment agricultural production-Hence, Government was justified in revok- D 
ing grant in respect of entire land. 
The appellants were granted land for agricnltural purposes. One of 
the conditions prescribed in the grant was that they would not use the land 
for any other purpose except with written permission of the authority-
E 
Subsequently, they entered into an agreement to sell a part of the land to 
different persons. On that basis, the grant was cancelled. When the appel-
lants had filed the proceedings before the authorities challenging the 
validity of the action taken, the District Collector found as a fact that 
though the appellant had filed an application for permission to use the 
land for non-agricultural purpose, no order was passed and he had been 
sellfog the land for building purpose in contravention of the grant made 
F 
in his favour. Accordingly, he upheld the order cancelling the entire 
allotment of land. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the 
State Government and in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution 
the High Court dismissed it snmmarily. 
G 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that under proviso to 
Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenne Code if the permission was not 
granted within three months from the date of the receipt of the application, 
permission must be deemed to have been granted; and that in· any case 
cancellation should have been only to the extent of contravention of the H 
661 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A grant and not the entire land. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Conrt 
HELD : 1.1. It is trne that the proviso to Section 65 of the Bombay 
Land Revenue Code envisages deemed permission if the Collector does not 
B grant permission within three months from the date of receipt of the 
application excluding the time as specified therein. Bnt the condition is 
that user must be always for an agricultural or non-agricultural purpose. 
Land should be used for raising commercial crops but not for industrial 
purposes or for building purposes. Deemed permission would not be a free 
C licence to use land for any other purpose defeating the object of the grant. 
[663-F-G] 
1.2. The public policy behind the grant is to augment agricultural 
production so as to enable the tiller of the soil, economic justice assured 
in the Preamble to the Constitution of India and Articles 38 and 46 to 
minimise inequalities in income and status. The State distributes under 
D Article 39(b), its material resources to subserve the said purpose. Having 
obtained the grant or permission, appellants cannot convert the land into 
non-agricultural use as well as for building houses. The sale of Govern-
ment Land for nominal amount was for the avowed constitutional pur-
poses. After the conversion, sale of the lands for building purpose would 
E be a windfall. Obviously, the public purpose of the grant and the constitu-
tional goals would be defeated by this method of circumvention. The 
Government, therefore, is justified in cancelling the grara:. Under these 
circumstances the Government is entitled to revoke the grant in respect of 
the entire extent of land. [663-H, 664-A-B] 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 171 of 
1979. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.77 of the Gujarat High 
Court in S.C.A. No. 1770 of 1977. 
G 
A.S. Bhasme for the Appellants. 
C. Badri Nath Babu and Anip Sachthey for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the High 
KALIDAS UMEDRAM v. STATE 
663 
Court summarily dismissing the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the A 
Constitution. Admittedly appellants were granted 2 acres 9 guntas of land 
on March 05, 1976 for agricultural purposes. One of the condition 
prescrib

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.