State of Goa & Anr. vs Dr. Alvaro Alberto Mousinho De Noronha Ferreira

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 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 affidavitcum-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] [660C-G]

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 asked to do so but they could have refused to file it. Nothing has been placed on record to even remotely undertake that undue pressure was put upon the respondent to file such an affidavit. In this affidavit he undertook to pay the conversion charges as demanded. He also undertook not to challenge the imposition of conversion charges. Most importantly, he also undertook not to sue for recovery of any excess conversion charges. The respondent deposited this amount, though under protest. Thereafter, he obtained all necessary permissions and after Sanad and all other documents were prepared, he chose to challenge the order. The respondent cannot be permitted to challenge the levy of conversion charges at the rates, post amendment, on account of his acts, deeds and conduct and acquiescence to the said order. Thus, the appellants rightly imposed the conversion charges as on the date of decision to grant Sanad. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. [Para 22-24] [660-H; 661-A-D]

Union of India & Anr. v. Mahajan Industries Ltd. & Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 203 - distinguished.

Union of India & Ors. v. Dev Raj Gupta & Ors. (1991)

1 SCC 63 ; Ansal & Saigal Properties (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. L. & D.O. & Ors. (1998) 74 DLT 152 - referred to.