Subscribe to BCA Journal Know More

March 2015

Transfer of Agricultural land – For Non – Agricultural use – Requirement of payment of premium and prior sanction – valid Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 section 43.

By Dr. K. Shivaram Senior Advocate Ajay R. Singh Advocate
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Gohil Jesangbhai Raysanbhai and others vs. State of Gujarat & Another AIR 2014 SC 3687.

The appeals raise the questions with respect to the validity of section 43 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as applicable to the State of Gujarat, now known in the State of Gujarat as Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. This section places certain restrictions on the transfer of land purchased or sold under the said Act. The appeal raises questions also with respect to the validity of the resolution dated 4-7-2008 passed by the Government of Gujarat to give effect to this section, and which resolution fixes the rates of premium to be paid to the State Government for converting, transferring, and for changing the use of land from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes.

The Hon’ble Court observed that the requirement of payment of premium by deemed purchaser for getting sanction to transfer his agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose is not invalid. The premium charged is neither tax nor fee. The tenant holds the land under State and the premium charged is for granting the sanction. This is because under this welfare statute these lands have been permitted to be purchased by the tenants at a much lesser price. The tenant is supposed to cultivate the land personally. It is not to be used for non-agricultural purpose. A benefit is acquired by the tenant under the scheme of the statute, and therefore, he must suffer the restrictions which are also imposed under the same statute. The idea in insisting upon the premium is also to make such transfers to non-agricultural purpose unattractive. The intention of the statute is reflected in section 43, and if that is the intention of the legislature there is no reason why it should be held otherwise. Plea that the premium charged is unconscionable and is expropriator not tenable in view of scheme of the Act.

You May Also Like