STATE OF GOA & ANR. versus DR. ALVARO ALBERTO MOUSINHO DE NORONHA FERREIRA

Citation: [2019] 15 S.C.R. 651 · Decided: 24-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
651
STATE OF GOA & ANR.
v.
DR. ALVARO ALBERTO MOUSINHO
DE NORONHA FERREIRA
(Civil Appeal No. 7576 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 24, 2019
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ]
Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968: s 32 –
Conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural – Payment
of conversion charges – Calculation of, 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 – Held:
Payment of conversion fees arises only when a decision is taken
to grant a Sanad, thus, the relevant date for fixing the conversion
charges will be the date on which the decision is taken to grant
the Sanad – On facts, the date appears to be 19.09.2013 – Amount
determined by the Collector was deposited by the land owners on
09.10.2013 though under protest – Appellants rightly imposed the
conversion charges as on the date of decision to grant Sanad –
Respondent not entitled to challenge the levy of these conversion
charges in view of his own acts, deeds and conduct – Goa Land
Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2013.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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. In the
instant case, that date appears to be 19.09.2013. The amount
determined by the Collector was deposited by the land owners
on 09.10.2013 though under protest reserving their right to
challenge the fixation of the date on which the conversion
charges were to be levied. [Para 14] [658-E-F]
1.2 Section 32 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue
Code, 1968 lays down certain timelines and gives a right to the
land owners to file an appeal if the timeline is not adhered to by
   [2019] 15 S.C.R. 651
651
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
the department. The application in the present case was filed
on 08.03.2013 and 60 days expired on 07.05.2013. The land
owner could have filed an appeal immediately thereafter to the
appellate authority which was obliged to decide it within 30 days.
This was not done. In fact, even after the amendment was made
on 22.05.2013, no appeal was filed. No doubt, there is a delay
in terms of the timelines laid down in Section 32 but the delay
cannot be said to be too much. Furthermore, the respondent
waived any rights which may have accrued to them in terms of
Section 32 by not filing an appeal. Further, the respondent has
acquiesced and consented to conversion charges being paid in
accordance with the amended provisions by filing the affidavit-
cum-indemnity bond. [Para 17] [659-C-F]
1.3 The respondent had only sought permission for
conversion of 16014 sq. mtrs. of land but on consideration of
the plan submitted by the respondent before the Town and
Country Planning the total requirement of land was 25368.50 sq.
mtrs. and, therefore, permission was granted for this 25368.50sq.
mtrs. The confusion arose because of the area which the
applicant applied for and this led to delay in the decision of the
matter. Though from the record it is not very clear on which date
the application was filed for conversion of the excess 9354.50
sq. mtrs. of land but the finding of the High Court is clear that
the application for this additional area which came to be included
by a separate addendum to the original application was filed only
after the amendment came into force. This portion of the
judgment has not been challenged by the respondent. It is, thus,
apparent that the land actually required to be converted was
25368.50 sq. mtrs. and, therefore, a complete application could
be said to have been filed only after the addendum was added.
Even if the addendum is ignored, it is obvious that by applying
for a smaller area than what was actually required, the respondent
and his family members themselves created a confusion which
also was partly responsible for the delay in grant of permission.
This is not a case where the delay is very large and the
respondent also contributed to the delay by not applying for the
conversion of the entire extent of land in one go. Furthermore,
the respondent did not even file an appeal. [Para 19-21] [660-
C-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
653
1.4 The affidavit-cum-indemnity bond filed by the
respondent, there was no coercion in the matter. The respondent
was not forced to file such an affidavit. They may have been
ask

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