STATE OF GUJARAT versus M/S. ARVIND MILLS AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 559 · Decided: 04-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF GUJARAT 
A 
v. 
M/S. ARV IND MILLS AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 4, 2002 
[SHIV ARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYA T, JJ.] 
B 
Land Laws: 
Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972-Rule 81(2) Proviso (as amended 
by Gujarat Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1977)-lmposition of revenue C 
on non-agricultural land-On breach of condition of permission granted 
under Urban Land Ceiling Act-Validity of -Held, not valid-Action for 
breach of Ceiling Act can be taken under that Act itself and not required to 
be taken by virtue of the proviso-Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 
1976-P.ombay Land Revenue Code. 1879-Section 48. 
D 
Present appeals challenge the order of High Court whereby, it had 
struck down proviso to rule 81(2) of Gujarat Land Revenue fAmendment) 
Rules, 1977. It had held that ifthe purpose of Rule 81(2) of the Rules is to 
penalize, for converting the land to any non-agricultural use other than the 
one for which permission is granted, it would amount to penalty and would be E 
beyond the rule making power of the State Government; and if its object is 
not to penalize, it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; and that 
the classification envisaged in the proviso has no rational nexus with the object 
of the Land Revenue Code, 1879 which is to collect the revenue according to 
use of the land. 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: The proviso to Rule 81(2) of Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 
as amended by Gujarat Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1977 covers the 
land falling within the Urban Agglomerations to which the Urban Land 
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 19i6 applies and the assessment in respect of G 
such lands shall be at double the rates mentioned in the table so long such 
land is not put to the non-agricultural use for which permission is granted 
or deemed to be granted. Section 48 of Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 
does not authorize levy of land revenue for the non use of the land covered by 
559 
H 
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A the proviso. If after taking permission under the provisions of Ceiling Act, a 
person does not put the land for the non-agricultural use, it is.open to 'he 
authority under the said Act to take appropriate action for non-compliance of 
the conditions imposed while granting p~rmission under the provisions ofJ.he 
said Act. It cannot be sai~ that for breach of condition of permission granted 
B under the Ceiling Act, action can be taken under the provisions of the Bombay 
Land Revenue Code by virtue of the proviso in question. Under Section 48 of 
the Code, land revenue can be imposed for the use of the land and not for the 
non-use of the land. Finding of the High Court in striking down the proviso 
to rule 81(2) is correct. [563-C, D; 564-G, H; 565-Al 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JµRISDICTION : Civil ~ppeal No. 3665-3758 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28. l 0.1983 of the Gujarat High 
Court in Spl. C.A. Nos. 583, 584 to 601, 716 to 721, 781to783, 788, 956, 1021, 
1039, 1160, 1196, 1234 to 1236, 1332, 1333, 1367, 1382, 1412, 1338, 1527, 1528, 
]) 1454, 1455, 1679, 1852, 1884, 1895,2123,2647,2668,2669/78, 190,410,462,463, 
535,594,852, 1041, 1240, 1665, 1753, 1962, 1824,2145,2147,2458,2497,2517, 
2697, 2698, 2699179, 197, 200, 332, 693, 867, 1015, 1041, 1348/80, 931, 364/82, 
1040/79, 417, 947, 1588/81, 779/80, 918, 2518of1979. 
E 
R.P. Bhatt, Ms. Hemantika Wahi and Ms. Monika Bapra, for the Appellant. 
Anip Sachthey, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Pooja Vij, M.N. Shroff, (NP) and 
Shri Narain, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
SHIV ARAJ V. PATIL J. These appeals are by the State of Gujarat, 
G 
aggrieved only by that part of the common order dated 28.10.1983 passed by 
the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 583 of 1978 and 
several connected applications by which the proviso to Rule 81(2) of the 
Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 as Amended by the Gujarat Land Revenue 
(Amendment) Rules, 1977 was quashed. 
The few facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that 
several Special Civil Applications were filed before the High Court of Gujarat 
challenging the validity of Gujarat Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1977 
(for short 'the Rules') on various grounds but during the hearing only the 
H following issues were pressed before the High Court:-
· 1 
STATE v. MIS. AR VIND MILLS [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL,J.] 
561 
"(3) Whether the impugned Amendment Rules of 1977 are bad in law A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.