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

                         [2019] 15 S.C.R. 651                         651


                    STATE OF GOA & ANR.                               A
                                v.
             DR. ALVARO ALBERTO MOUSINHO
                  DE NORONHA FERREIRA
                  (Civil Appeal No. 7576 of 2019)                     B
                      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    C
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      D
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     E
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,     F
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           G
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    H
                               651
652           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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
C     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
D     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
E     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,
F     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
G     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-
H     C-G]
      STATE OF GOA & ANR. v. DR. ALVARO ALBERTO                      653
          MOUSINHO DE NORONHA FERREIRA

      1.4 The affidavit-cum-indemnity bond filed by the              A
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           B
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       C
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         D
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.                         E
      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.
                                                                     F
                     Case Law Reference
(2005) 10 SCC 203                distinguished       Para 7
(1991) 1 SCC 63                  referred to         Para 8
(1998) 74 DLT 152                referred to         Para 9
                                                                     G
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7576
of 2019.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.2016 of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 262
of 2014.                                                             H
654            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A           Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman and Ms. Viddusshi for
      M/s. K J John and Co., Advs. for the Appellants.
           Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Yashraj Singh Deora, Ms. Anupma,
      Anmol Mehta, Ms. Sonal Mashankar, Shyam Agarwal, Advs. for the
      Respondent.
B
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
            1. Leave granted.
            2. The following question arises for decision in this appeal.
C
            “Whether conversion charges payable for conversion of land from
            agricultural to non-agricultural should be calculated 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?”
D
            3. Facts necessary for decision of the case are that the
      respondent and three of his family members applied to the State for
      permission to convert some agricultural land measuring 16014 sq. mtrs.
      on 08.03.2013. This application was acknowledged by the Office of
      the Deputy Collector on 29.04.2013. Inspection of the land was carried
E
      out on 15.05.2013 and the Mamlatdar submitted his report to the Deputy
      Collector on 16.05.2013. Thereafter, a report was submitted by the
      Town and Country Planning Department on 21.05.2013.
            4. On 22.05.2013, amendment was made in the Goa, Daman &
      Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’)
F
      by the Goa Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2013 and the rates
      of conversion were revised and increased substantially.
             5. The Deputy Conservator of Forest, Margao submitted his
      report with regard to the conversion on 04.06.2013. On 09.07.2013, the
      Deputy Collector wrote to the Mamlatdar for some information, which
G
      information was supplied by the Mamlatdar to the Deputy Collector
      on 15.07.2013. On 19.07.2013, the respondent submitted an affidavit
      agreeing to pay the conversion charges as asked for and also undertook
      not to sue for refund of conversion charges. On 19.09.2013, a
      communication was sent to the respondent and his family members to
H     deposit the amount as per the enhanced rates. On 09.10.2013, the
       STATE OF GOA & ANR. v. DR. ALVARO ALBERTO                             655
    MOUSINHO DE NORONHA FERREIRA [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

respondent deposited the amount of conversion charges, as demanded           A
and thereafter, Sanad granting permission for conversion of land was
issued on 19.11.2013.
       6. Thereafter, the respondent filed writ petition claiming refund
of the excess amount, as according to the respondent, the conversion
charges should have been fixed as per the rates applicable on the date       B
of application i.e. 08.03.2013. The High Court partly allowed the writ
petition in the following terms:
          “(ii) The impugned communication dated 19.09.2013 stands
                quashed and set aside.
                                                                             C
           (iii) The respondents are directed to calculate the conversion
                 fees payable by the petitioner in the light of the
                 observations made herein above and refund the excess
                 amount, if any, to the petitioner together with interest
                 thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of
                 such payment up to the actual payment.”                     D
       The High Court, however, held that this order applied only to
16014 sq. mtrs. and for the remaining area 9354.50 sq. mtrs. which
was added by a separate addendum after the amendment came into
force on 22.05.2013, the respondent herein shall be liable to pay revised
rates. The High Court relied upon the judgments of this Court in the         E
case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Mahajan Industries Ltd. &
Anr. 1, Union of India & Ors. vs. Dev Raj Gupta & Ors.2, and the
judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal & Saigal
Properties (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. L. & D.O. & Ors.3
       7. As far as the judgment in Mahajan Industries case (supra)          F
is concerned, the judgment is based on the concession of the counsel
for the appellant that he did not dispute the correctness of the judgment
of the Delhi High Court in Ansal & Saigal Properties (P) Ltd.
(supra). The Court further held that in terms of the said judgment the
crucial date for calculating the conversion charges is the date of receipt   G
of the application. This Court further held that the application filed by
the original owners on 25.03.1981 through their general power of

1
  (2005) 10 SCC 203
2
  (1991) 1 SCC 63
3
  (1998) 74 DLT 152                                                          H
656            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     attorney for change of land use had never been rejected and was still
      pending and it was in these circumstances that the Union of India was
      directed to take a final decision on conversion of land use as
      expeditiously as possible but conversion charges would be payable as
      on the date of application for conversion. According to us, this judgment
      is based on a concession and cannot be used by the respondent and
B
      has been wrongly relied upon by the High Court.
             8. In Dev Raj Gupta’s case (supra), there were various
      questions raised. One of the questions was – when was the application
      properly constituted; and the other was, what was the appropriate date
      for fixing the conversion charges? The High Court held that a proper
C
      application for conversion had been filed by the land owners on
      15.02.1978. The High Court further held that in view of the provision
      in the Master Plan declaring the area in question in which the leased
      land was situate as commercial zone, there was automatic and statutory
      conversion and no application for conversion was necessary. It was
D     also held that it was the rate of 1978 which would apply and not the
      rate of April, 1981. This Court held that an application for conversion
      was required and a proper application in this behalf was filed only on
      27.02.1981. This Court held that the sanction was given by the authority
      concerned to convert the user of land on 12.01.1984 and the Union of
E     India had failed to explain the delay of 3 years in replying to the
      application for conversion filed on 27.02.1981 and it was in these facts
      it was held that the conversion charges should be fixed as on 27.02.1981.
             9. As far as the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of
      Ansal & Saigal Properties (P) Ltd. (supra) is concerned, on careful
F     perusal of the same we find that that judgment has been delivered in
      the facts of the case. There was no provision for levying of conversion
      fees from a particular date. In the present case, Section 32 of the Code
      is applicable and there was no such provision before the Delhi High
      Court. Therefore, in our view, that judgment has no applicability to the
      facts and circumstances of the case.
G
            10. As far as the present case is concerned, we may make
      reference to the relevant provisions of Section 32 of the Code which
      reads as follows:
            “32. Procedure for conversion of use of land from one
H           purpose to another. –
   STATE OF GOA & ANR. v. DR. ALVARO ALBERTO                                657
MOUSINHO DE NORONHA FERREIRA [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

         (1) xxx               xxx                      xxx                 A
         (2) The Collector, on receipt of an application, -
             (a) shall acknowledge the application within seven days;
             (b) xxx              xxx                   xxx
             (c) may, after due enquiry, either grant the permission        B
                 on such terms and conditions as he may specify
                 subject to any rules made in this behalf by the
                 Government; or refuse the permission applied for,
                 if it is necessary so to do to secure the public health,
                 safety and convenience or if such use is contrary          C
                 to any scheme for the planned development of a
                 village, town or city in force under any law for the
                 time being in force and in the case of land which is
                 to be used as building sites in order to secure in
                 addition that the dimensions, arrangement and
                 accessibility of the sites are adequate for the health     D
                 and convenience of the occupiers or are suitable to
                 the locality; where an application is rejected, the
                 Collector shall state the reasons in writing of such
                 rejection.
   (3) The Collector shall take a decision on the application within        E
   a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application
   and in case of his failure to do so, the person shall have the right
   to make an appeal to the Secretary (Revenue) to the
   Government who shall dispose of the appeal within a period of
   thirty days from the date of filing of appeal.                           F
   (4) xxx                  xxx                   xxx
   (5) xxx                  xxx                   xxx
    (6) When the land is permitted to be used for a non-agricultural
   purpose, a sanad shall be granted to the holder thereof in the
   prescribed form, on payment of fees at the following rates,              G
   namely:-
   xxx                       xxxxxx
                   (Rates are prescribed)
   (7) xxx                  xxx                  xxx”                       H
658             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A            11. It would be pertinent to mention that vide amendment dated
      22.05.2013, sub-section (6) was amended providing different commercial
      rates for different areas and for different purposes. We are concerned
      with clause (ii) of sub-section (6) of Section 32 which reads as follows:
             “(ii) When the land is permitted to be used from one purpose to
B            another, a sanad shall be granted to the holder thereof in the
             prescribed form, on payment of the fees hereinbelow:-”
             12. A careful analysis of Section 32 shows that on receipt of an
      application, the Collector shall acknowledge the application within 7
      days, if it is not otherwise returned. Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of
C     Section 32 empowers the Collector either to grant or refuse permission.
      Sub-section (3) is important and provides that the Collector should take
      a decision on the application within a period of 60 days from the date
      of receipt of the application. In case, the Collector fails to take a decision
      within 60 days then the person has a right to file an appeal to the
      Secretary (Revenue), who is duty bound to dispose of the appeal within
D
      30 days of the filing of the appeal.
              13. Sub-section (6) clearly lays down that once permission is
      granted to use the land for non-agricultural purpose, a Sanad is to be
      granted to the holder thereof on payment of fees prescribed in the Code
      itself. Even after amendment, the position virtually remains the same.
E
             14. 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 present case, that date appears to be
      19.09.2013. The amount determined by the Collector was deposited by
F
      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.
            15. As far as the present case is concerned, the application was
      admittedly submitted on 08.03.2013. The perusal of the record reveals
G     that on 29.04.2013 the Field Surveyor prepared a note that the
      application is in order and the copies of the same be forwarded to the
      Deputy Conservator of Forest, Margao, Mamlatdar, Salcete, Town &
      Country Planning Department, Salcete with a request to the respondent
      and his family members to be present for inspection of the site proposed.
H     It would also be relevant to point out that after the officers submitted
    STATE OF GOA & ANR. v. DR. ALVARO ALBERTO                                659
 MOUSINHO DE NORONHA FERREIRA [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

the reports, as required, the respondent submitted an affidavit-cum-         A
indemnity bond on 19.07.2013. The relevant portion of the same reads
as follows:
      “7. I further say that, myself along with my said brother shall
      not request the Government for the refund of conversion fees
      or part of conversion fees paid hereinafter for conversion of said     B
      land, except in case where we are not allowed to develop the
      land by any government authority and or agency.”
       16. It was thereafter that the order dated 19.09.2013 was passed.
After depositing the amount and taking necessary permissions, the writ
petition was filed.                                                          C

       17. We are of the view that the situation in the present case is
totally different from the cases referred to by the High Court. In the
cases decided by this Court, there was no provision similar to Section
32 of the Code. Section 32 lays down certain timelines and gives a right
                                                                             D
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             E
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                 F
accordance with the amended provisions by filing the affidavit-cum-
indemnity bond, referred to above.
       18. It was contended by Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent that this indemnity bond was a result of
coercion by the authorities, who insisted on the said indemnity bond being   G
filed before granting permission. We are not impressed with this
argument. In the writ petition filed by the respondent, the only averment
made in this regard is that respondent was required to submit the said
indemnity bond to the Office of the Deputy Collector. The relevant
portion of the writ petition reads as follows:                               H
660            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A           “7. On 19/07/2013, the Petitioner submitted Affidavit-cum-
            Indemnity Bond, which the Petitioner was required to submit to
            the Office of the Deputy Collector (Revenue)……
            8. At the time of presenting the said Affidavit-cum-Indemnity
            Bond, the Petitioner’s representative was told, that the issuance
B           of the Conversion Sanad, might be delayed further, as confusion
            had arisen in the Office of the Deputy Collector (Revenue), in
            the matter…...”
            19. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that the respondent had
      only sought permission for conversion of 16014 sq. mtrs. of land but
C     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 25368.50 sq.
      mtrs. The confusion arose because of the area which the applicant
      applied for and this led to delay in the decision of the matter.
D           20. 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
E
      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.
             21. Even if we were to ignore the addendum, it is obvious that
F
      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 we are of the
      view that the respondent also contributed to the delay by not applying
G     for the conversion of the entire extent of land in one go. Furthermore,
      as pointed out above, the respondent did not even file an appeal.
             22. It is in this factual background that we have to consider the
      affidavit-cum-indemnity bond filed by the respondent. In our view, there
      was no coercion in the matter. The respondent was not forced to file
H     such an affidavit. They may have been asked to do so but they could
    STATE OF GOA & ANR. v. DR. ALVARO ALBERTO                                661
 MOUSINHO DE NORONHA FERREIRA [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

have refused to file it. Nothing has been placed on record to even           A
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.
                                                                             B
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. In our view,
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.                              C
       23. In view of the above discussion, we hold that in the facts of
the present case, the appellants rightly imposed the conversion charges
as on the date of decision to grant Sanad, which is the legal position.
We further hold that the respondent was not entitled to challenge the
levy of these conversion charges in view of his own acts, deeds and          D
conduct.
       24. In view of the above, we allow the appeal, set aside the
judgment of the High Court dated 13.10.2016 and dismiss the Writ
Petition No.262 of 2014 filed by the petitioner (respondent herein).
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.                          E

Nidhi Jain                                                 Appeal allowed.



                                                                             F




                                                                             G




                                                                             H